Taylor v. Page
This text of 88 Mass. 86 (Taylor v. Page) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The ruling in this case was correct. For though the mortgage, as well as the note, was void, as between Dempsey and the defendant; Brigham v. Potter, 14 Gray, 522; yet the note is valid in the hands of the plaintiff, who is a bona fide indorsee for a valuable consideration, without notice of the illegal consideration for which it was given. Cazet v. Field, 9 Gray, 329. The mortgage given to secure payment of the note was also assigned to the plaintiff at the same time when the note was indorsed to him. And we know of no principle or authority which makes the mortgage less valid than the note, in the plaintiff’s hands. We have nowhere found any reference to this point, except in Hills v. Eliot, 12 Mass. 31, where the court said that it was unnecessary to decide it in that case.
Conditional judgment for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
88 Mass. 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-page-mass-1863.