United States Trust Co. v. MacNeil
This text of 122 N.E.2d 903 (United States Trust Co. v. MacNeil) 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
Exceptions overruled. The judge directed verdicts for the plaintiff in these actions of contract brought by the holder of two promissory notes against the makers and also the indorsers (including the defendant MacNeil individually), who waived demand, notice, and protest. The defendants admitted that the notes were validly executed, that the signatures and indorsements thereon were genuine, and that the makers received the full amount set forth in said notes. The judge excluded evidence that a third party, a depositor, made a claim by letter against the plaintiff for some checks which were supposedly forged. The defendants were not harmed by the exclusion of the evidence as there is nothing to show what were the contents of the letter. Lane v. Epinard, 318 Mass. 664, 667-668. Even if we assume that the letter was the order and release of funds referred to in the defendants’ answers setting up payment, there was no error, for the letter did not constitute payment of the notes. Doody v. Pierce, 9 Allen, 141, 143. Borden v. Sackett, 113 Mass. 214, 217. Austin v. Papanti, 197 Mass. 584, 586. Westminster National Bank v. Graustein, 270 Mass. 565, 586.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
122 N.E.2d 903, 332 Mass. 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-trust-co-v-macneil-mass-1954.