The President, Directors, & Co. v. Hammatt

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

The President, Directors, & Co. v. Hammatt

9 Mass. 159

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 15, 1812

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 9 Mass. 159 (The President, Directors, & Co. v. Hammatt) 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.

Bluebook

The President, Directors, & Co. v. Hammatt, 9 Mass. 159 (Mass. 1812).

Pincite

Opinion

Sewall, J.

This action, and the action by the same plaintiffs against Page, are upon one and the same note. And as to evidence of a demand and notice, the same observations apply. But [148]*148whether a demand was made, and notice was given, are questions of fact, for the jury to determine upon the evidence and testimony adduced at the trial. These, as reported, prove a number of cir cumstances, from which, taken together, the jury may lawfully, and perhaps will be induced to presume the requisite demand and notice, which are to be proved in cases of this kind, to enable the holder of a note to recover against an endorser. The confidence reposed in the director of the bank coming from Bath, by the parties living there, in their dealings with the bank, and Mr. Tollman’s attendance on the day when notice was to be given, are strong circumstances, from which, perhaps, notice may be inferred; but* we think the inference, as a presumption of one fact from another, or from a number of facts and circumstances proved, is to be made by the jury. The absence of Hammatt is not a material circumstance. It is enough, if a letter was left, or might have gone by the mail to Hammatt’s usual residence or place of business ; nor, as the agreement and usage were respecting endorsers living out of Wiscasset, is it at all necessary to prove an actual delivery of a letter to Hammatt, or at his house. It is sufficient if a letter was sent in the ordinary course of the mail from Wiscasset to Bath,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sewall, J.

This action, and the action by the same plaintiffs against Page, are upon one and the same note. And as to evidence of a demand and notice, the same observations apply. But [148]*148whether a demand was made, and notice was given, are questions of fact, for the jury to determine upon the evidence and testimony adduced at the trial. These, as reported, prove a number of cir cumstances, from which, taken together, the jury may lawfully, and perhaps will be induced to presume the requisite demand and notice, which are to be proved in cases of this kind, to enable the holder of a note to recover against an endorser. The confidence reposed in the director of the bank coming from Bath, by the parties living there, in their dealings with the bank, and Mr. Tollman’s attendance on the day when notice was to be given, are strong circumstances, from which, perhaps, notice may be inferred; but* we think the inference, as a presumption of one fact from another, or from a number of facts and circumstances proved, is to be made by the jury. The absence of Hammatt is not a material circumstance. It is enough, if a letter was left, or might have gone by the mail to Hammatt’s usual residence or place of business ; nor, as the agreement and usage were respecting endorsers living out of Wiscasset, is it at all necessary to prove an actual delivery of a letter to Hammatt, or at his house. It is sufficient if a letter was sent in the ordinary course of the mail from Wiscasset to Bath,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Mass. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-president-directors-co-v-hammatt-mass-1812.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack