Buckley v. Hacking

• Decision Date: 03 March 1927
• Parties: FRANCIS E. BUCKLEY v. LAWRENCE J. HACKING.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

258 Mass. 525

FRANCIS E. BUCKLEY v. LAWRENCE J. HACKING.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 3, 1927

January 20, 1927.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., CROSBY, PIERCE WAIT, & SANDERSON, JJ.

Contract, In writing. Evidence, Extrinsic affecting writing. Bills and Notes.

It is no defence to an action by the payee against the maker of a negotiable promissory note containing an unconditional promise to pay money that, at the time the note was given, the maker pledged a certificate of stock as security, for its payment and the parties orally agreed that if, at its maturity, the note was not paid by the defendant, he should forfeit all right to the stock and should be under no liability upon the note.

CONTRACT, by the payee against the maker of a negotiable promissory note. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated September 4, 1925.

On removal to the Superior Court, the action was tried before Lummus, J. The defendant in his opening statement to the jury, after the close of the plaintiff's evidence set forth the defence stated in the opinion. The judge then inquired of him if that was a complete statement of his defence to the action, and, upon being informed that it was ordered a verdict for the plaintiff, saying that in his opinion the defence, as outlined by counsel for the defendant, did not in law constitute a defence to this action. In accordance with the judge's order, the jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,617.50. The defendant alleged exceptions.

H. Goldkrand, (D.

B.Burns with him,) for the defendant.

A.H. Lewis, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief.

SANDERSON, J. This is an action by the payee of a promissory note given by the defendant for money lent. The defendant offered to prove that, at the time the note was given, he pledged a certificate of stock as security for its payment and the parties orally agreed that if, at its maturity, the note was not paid by the defendant he should forfeit all right to the stock and should be under no liability upon the note. The judge ruled that the evidence offered did not constitute a defence to the action. The only question presented is whether that ruling was right.

The note was an unconditional promise to pay in money; proof of a contemporaneous oral agreement that it should not be so paid varies the terms of the note and, under well settled principles of law, would not be a defence to the action....