Whiddon v. Sprague

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Whiddon v. Sprague

89 N.E. 917, 203 Mass. 526, 1909 Mass. LEXIS 967

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 89 N.E. 917 (Whiddon v. Sprague) 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

Whiddon v. Sprague, 89 N.E. 917, 203 Mass. 526, 1909 Mass. LEXIS 967 (Mass. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Rugg, J.

This is an action on a promissory note payable to the order of The Raymond Syndicate, a corporation, indorsed in blank “ The Raymond Syndicate, Geo. J. Raymond, Gen’l Manager.” The declaration was on the note as indorsed to the plaintiff and the answer was a general denial. The only point raised is whether in this state of the pleadings the plaintiff was required to prove the genuineness of the indorsement. It was said in Lowell v. Bickford, 201 Mass. 543, 545, with ample citation of authorities, that “ It is the settled law of this Commonwealth that a holder of a negotiable promissory note payable to bearer or payable to order and indorsed in blank can sue on it in his own name. ... It is not necessary for him to prove that he owns the note or if not that he has the consent of the true owner to bring suit on it in his own name.” That case fully covers the present one, as the genuineness of the signature of the payee in the indorsement was not denied. R. L. c. 173, § 86. It was called to the attention of the parties in the trial court.

Bradlee v. Warren Five Cents Savings Bank, 127 Mass. 107, relied upon by the defendant, rests upon the law respecting savings banks, and has no bearing here.

These exceptions appear frivolous and are overruled, and double costs and interest at the rate of twelve per cent from the time when the exceptions were allowed are awarded against the defendant.

So ordered.

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

Rugg, J.

This is an action on a promissory note payable to the order of The Raymond Syndicate, a corporation, indorsed in blank “ The Raymond Syndicate, Geo. J. Raymond, Gen’l Manager.” The declaration was on the note as indorsed to the plaintiff and the answer was a general denial. The only point raised is whether in this state of the pleadings the plaintiff was required to prove the genuineness of the indorsement. It was said in Lowell v. Bickford, 201 Mass. 543, 545, with ample citation of authorities, that “ It is the settled law of this Commonwealth that a holder of a negotiable promissory note payable to bearer or payable to order and indorsed in blank can sue on it in his own name. ... It is not necessary for him to prove that he owns the note or if not that he has the consent of the true owner to bring suit on it in his own name.” That case fully covers the present one, as the genuineness of the signature of the payee in the indorsement was not denied. R. L. c. 173, § 86. It was called to the attention of the parties in the trial court.

Bradlee v. Warren Five Cents Savings Bank, 127 Mass. 107, relied upon by the defendant, rests upon the law respecting savings banks, and has no bearing here.

These exceptions appear frivolous and are overruled, and double costs and interest at the rate of twelve per cent from the time when the exceptions were allowed are awarded against the defendant.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 N.E. 917, 203 Mass. 526, 1909 Mass. LEXIS 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiddon-v-sprague-mass-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack