Backus v. Spaulding
| Decision Date | 06 January 1875 |
| Citation | 116 Mass. 418 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Boardman P. Backus v. Mark H. Spaulding & another, executors |
Argued September 15, 1874
Hampshire. Contract brought for the benefit of William H Stoddard and J. D. Kellogg, against the executors of Jonathan S. Baker, on a promissory note for $ 3180, made by Baker on March 1, 1871, and payable to the plaintiff within four months from date, with interest. Writ dated January 1, 1873.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Lord, J., the plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that on March 1, 1871, Baker agreed with the plaintiff to lend him $ 5000, and to take the plaintiff's note therefor, payable within six years from date, and as security for the payment of that note, he agreed to take an assignment of a contract which the plaintiff had in relation to certain real estate in Northampton; and that on the same day the plaintiff executed his promissory note for $ 5000 as agreed, payable within six years from date with interest, and also an assignment of said contract of the plaintiff in relation to said real estate, and delivered said note, contract and assignment, to Baker, who held them at the time of his death, and the defendants, as his executors, now hold the same; that Baker thereupon lent the plaintiff the sum of $ 1820, and gave him the note in suit for the balance that before said note became due Baker died, and on June 29 1871, the plaintiff assigned said note to Stoddard & Kellogg, as collateral security for goods sold and delivered, and to be sold to him; and that Stoddard & Kellogg took said note in good faith. The defendants filed the $ 5000 note in set-off.
Upon this evidence the judge ruled that, inasmuch as the only consideration for the $ 3180 note was Backus's promise to repay the amount furnished on such note, such promise was not in law a sufficient consideration for the note, although such promise was secured by the assignment of the contract referred to, as collateral to it. Upon this ruling a verdict was taken for the defendants, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
Exceptions sustained.
D. W. Bond, for the plaintiff.
S. T. Spaulding, for the defendants.
One promise is a legal consideration for another. Met. Con. 182. If a promissory note is made by A. to B. in exchange for a promissory note made by B. to A., each note is a valid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hederman v. Cox
... ... Banks, 11 Md. 198; Stickney v. Mohler, 19 Md ... 490; Higginson v. Gray, 6 Met. 212; Whittier v ... Eager, 1 Allen 499; Backus v. Spaulding, 116 ... Mass. 418; Luke v. Fisher, 10 Cush. 271; Savage ... v. Bell, 17 N. J. Eq. 142, 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 579; ... Rice v ... ...
-
Graffam v. Pierce
...to put a hard-pine floor in a hall. This contract, consisting of mutual promises, was founded upon a distinct consideration, ( Backus v. Spaulding, 116 Mass. 418;) and that furnishes an additional reason for the admission of the evidence, (Van Brunt v. Day, 81 N.Y. 251.) See, also, Doyle v.......
-
Sec. Nat. Bank of Tulsa v. Bohnefeld
...in exchange. Newman v. Frost, 52 N.Y. 422; Rice v. Grange, 131 N.Y. 149, 30 N.E. 46; Bank v. Smith, 155 N.Y. 185, 49 N.E. 680; Backus v. Spaulding, 116 Mass. 418; 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2nd Ed.) 188; Edw. Bills, 322 Chit. Bills (10th Am. Ed.) 708; Daniel, Neg. Inst. section 187; Wooster v. ......
-
Graffam v. Pierce
...to put a hard-pine floor in a hall. This contract, consisting of mutual promises, was founded upon a distinct consideration, (Backus v. Spaulding, 116 Mass. 418;) and that fact furnishes an additional reason for the admission of the evidence, (Van Brunt v. Day, 81 N.Y. 251.) See, also, Doyl......