Union National Bank v. Cannato

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Union National Bank v. Cannato

214 N.E.2d 30, 350 Mass. 767

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 7, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 214 N.E.2d 30 (Union National Bank v. Cannato) 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

Union National Bank v. Cannato, 214 N.E.2d 30, 350 Mass. 767 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

The holder of four promissory notes has brought this action in contract against the maker of them. The declaration is in four counts, one for each note, and was filed on November 2, 1964, the return day of the writ. The answer which was filed late by leave of court was a general denial that “the signature is genuine” and a demand for proof that “it” was. The judge’s ruling at the outset of trial that it was not a separate special demand under G. L. c. 231, § 29, did not harm the defendant, for photocopies of the four notes were properly admitted in evidence. The presumption of the validity of the signatures thus became operative and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, required a finding for the plaintiff. G. L. e. 106, § 3-307 (1), (1) (b). See also G. L. c. 106, § 3-307 (2). The defendant has taken no exception to the denial of certain requests for rulings and they are not before us.

Exceptions overruled.

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

The holder of four promissory notes has brought this action in contract against the maker of them. The declaration is in four counts, one for each note, and was filed on November 2, 1964, the return day of the writ. The answer which was filed late by leave of court was a general denial that “the signature is genuine” and a demand for proof that “it” was. The judge’s ruling at the outset of trial that it was not a separate special demand under G. L. c. 231, § 29, did not harm the defendant, for photocopies of the four notes were properly admitted in evidence. The presumption of the validity of the signatures thus became operative and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, required a finding for the plaintiff. G. L. e. 106, § 3-307 (1), (1) (b). See also G. L. c. 106, § 3-307 (2). The defendant has taken no exception to the denial of certain requests for rulings and they are not before us.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 N.E.2d 30, 350 Mass. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-national-bank-v-cannato-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack