106 Mass. 559 (Mass. 1871), Hungerford National Bank v. Van Nostrand
|Citation:||106 Mass. 559|
|Opinion Judge:||Wells, J.|
|Party Name:||Hungerford National Bank v. William T. Van Nostrand & another|
|Attorney:||N. Morse, for the defendants. G. W. Ware, Jr., for the plaintiffs.|
|Court:||Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts|
Contract by the Hungerford National Bank, alleged in the writ to be "a corporation duly established by law at Adams in the state of New York," on two promissory notes signed by the defendants, each "payable at Hungerford National Bank, Adams," to the order of Rufus P. White, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs. The answer denied all the allegations of the declaration.
At the trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., the signatures of the defendants and of White on the notes were admitted, and there was some evidence, which it is unnecessary to state in detail, that the plaintiffs were a corporation, and also other evidence now immaterial. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were not a corporation.
The judge ruled "that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the organization for the plaintiff corporation;" "that the whole evidence was insufficient to show either payment of the notes, or that the plaintiff took them subject to the equities between the original parties; and that there was not sufficient evidence in the case to warrant the jury in finding a verdict for the defendants;" and ordered a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the notes and interest. The defendants alleged exceptions.
The answer put the plaintiff to the proof of every fact necessary to the maintenance...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP