Auburn State Bank v. National Laundry Co.

• Decision Date: 05 February 1935
• Citation: 194 N.E. 306,289 Mass. 397
• Parties: AUBURN STATE BANK v. NATIONAL LAUNDRY CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

289 Mass. 397

194 N.E. 306

AUBURN STATE BANK v. NATIONAL LAUNDRY CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 5, 1935

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Morton Judge.

Action of contract by the Auburn State Bank against the National Laundry Company. The judge ordered a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,543.20. On defendant's exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

J. R. Kewer, of Boston, for plaintiff.

E. M Sullivan, of Boston, for defendant.

FIELD Justice.

This is an action on a promissory note. The writ is dated June 3, 1932. The plaintiff declared on a promissory note, a copy of which is annexed to the declaration. It reads as follows: ‘ $1,400.00 Boston, Mass., March 1, 1932. There months after date we promise to pay to the order of the Auburn Fdry. (Stoker Division) Fourteen Hundred 00/100 Dollars. Payable at The Atlantic National Bank of Boston. Value received Six per cent interest. No _____. Due June 1, 1932. National Laundry Co., Harry Rosenfield, Pres.’ The declaration further alleges that ‘ before maturity thereof said note was negotiated by the payee thereof to the plaintiff for value.’ The defendant answered general denial and payment and answered further: ‘ That it denies the signature to the note declared upon by the plaintiff * * * that it denies the authority of anyone to execute on the part of it the instrument declared upon by the plaintiff * * * [and] that the plaintiff is not an innocent purchaser in due course of said note.’ A verdict for the plaintiff was directed. The defendant excepted to the direction of the verdict, the exclusion of evidence and the refusal to rule as requested by the defendant, but argues only its exception to the direction of the verdict.

There was no error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

The bill of exceptions while not stating in terms that the note was introduced in evidence clearly implies that it was so introduced. And the parties agreed ‘ that the plaintiff was a holder in due course of the note in suit.’

It must be taken that the judge directed the verdict which the pleadings before him and in view of their averments. Brasslavsky v. Boston Elevated Railway, 250 Mass 403, 404, 145 N.E. 529, and cases cited. The pleadings did not put in issue the genuineness of the signature of the defendant as maker of the note or the authority of Harry Rosenfield to sign the note for the defendant. G. L. (Ter....