Traver v. Stevens
This text of 65 Mass. 167 (Traver v. Stevens) 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 ground of want of consideration for the promise of the defendant entirely fails. The stipulation that the plaintiff would deliver up a certain other note to the defendant, is an ample consideration for the promise in the note in suit. The only ground of defence that can be plausibly urged is, that this was a conditional promise, and the con[168]*168dition not performed upon which it rested. But as it seems to the court, the note was given upon a good consideration and the delivery of the other note was not a condition precedent to a recovery of the note in suit. The stipulation, to send the defendant his other note, was an independent stipulation, executory in its character. The two promises were to be performed at different times, and this also shows them to have been independent promises. The case of Waterhouse v Kendall, ante, 128, seems to be directly in point.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
65 Mass. 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traver-v-stevens-mass-1853.