116 Mass. 303 (Mass. 1874), Estabrook v. Swett

Citation:116 Mass. 303
Opinion Judge:Gray, C. J.
Party Name:Rufus Estabrook & others v. George W. Swett
Attorney:D. B. Gove, for the plaintiffs. W. E. L. Dillaway, for the defendant, was not called upon.
Judge Panel:Gray, C. J. Wells & Devens, JJ., absent.
Case Date:November 17, 1874
Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 303

116 Mass. 303 (Mass. 1874)

Rufus Estabrook & others

v.

George W. Swett

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 17, 1874

Suffolk. Contract upon an account annexed. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Pitman, J., the following facts appeared:

The plaintiffs sold the defendant the goods described in the account on a credit of thirty days; and at the end of this time the plaintiffs received of the defendant a promissory note of J. G. Robinson in payment, and receipted the bill for the goods. There was evidence tending to show that the defendant made false and fraudulent representations to induce the plaintiffs to take the note. Before the note became due the plaintiffs discovered that the representations were false and notified the defendant, who said that if the note was not paid at maturity he would see it paid. The note was not paid at maturity, and Robinson was then and has since been in Canada insolvent. The plaintiffs have the note still in their possession.

"The judge, not being satisfied as a matter of fact that the note was absolutely worthless, ruled that the plaintiffs could not recover of the defendant on the original cause of action, while the plaintiffs held the note in their possession, or until they had made a tender thereof; and accordingly found for the defendant." The plaintiffs alleged exceptions.

D. B. Gove, for the plaintiffs.

W. E. L. Dillaway, for the defendant,...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP