Huntington v. Shute

• Decision Date: 04 January 1902
• Parties: HUNTINGTON v. SHUTE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

180 Mass. 371

62 N.E. 380

HUNTINGTON v. SHUTE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 4, 1902

COUNSEL

Geo. W. Parke and

J. W. Titus, for plaintiff.

E. B. Powers and D. L. Smith, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP, J.

The rule is well settled in this commonwealth that in an action on a promissory note the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the fact that it is given for a valuable consideration. While the production of the note, with the admission or proof of the signature, makes a prima facie case, yet, if the defendant puts in evidence of a want of consideration, the burden of proof does not shift, but remains upon the plaintiff, who must satisfy the jury by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the note was for a valid consideration. Morris v. Bowman, 12 Gray, 467; Estabrook v. Boyle, 1 Allen, 412; Smith v. Edgeworth, 3 Allen, 233; Perley v. Perley, 144 Mass. 104, 10 N.E. 726. It does not appear from the reports of these cases whether the note declared on in each contained the words 'value received.' These words, however, were in the note in suit in the case of Delano v. Bartlett, 6 Cush. 364, but the case was decided on the general rule. See, also, Noxon v. De Wolf, 10 Gray, 343, 346; Simpson v. Davis, 119 Mass. 269, 20 Am. Rep. 324. We can see no reason for changing the rule so well established merely because the note contains the words 'value received.'

Exceptions sustained.