Johnson v. Brown

• Decision Date: 25 June 1891
• Parties: JOHNSON v. BROWN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

154 Mass. 105
27 N.E. 994

JOHNSON
v.
BROWN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

June 25, 1891.

Exceptions from superior court, Middlesex county; JOHN W. HAMMOND, Judge.

This was an action upon a promissory note indorsed by B.F. Brown, defendant, and delivered to W.H. Johnson, plaintiff. The note was protested for non-payment. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

[154 Mass. 106]R.M. Stark, for plaintiff.

J.M. Brown, for defendant.

C. ALLEN, J.

1. The notarial certificate of protest was competent without further proof. This has often been so held in respect to foreign bills. Porter v. Judson, 1 Gray, 175;Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U.S. 546, 1 Supt.Ct.Rep. 418; Browne v. Bank 6 Serg. & R. 484. For this purpose the different states of the Union are deemed foreign to each other, so that a notarial certificate of protest under seal is good on mere production. Townsley v. Sumrall, 2 Pet. 170;Halliday v. McDougall, 20 Wend. 81;Carter v. Burley, 9 NH. 558 566. See, also

[27 N.E. 995]

Bank v. Hussey, 12 Pick. 483. By St.1880, c. 4, re-enacted in Pub.St. c. 77, § 22, protests of domestic bills of exchange and notes are put upon the same basis. The meaning is the same as if the language had been more precise,-that any instrument purporting to be a protest of a bill or note, duly certified by a notary public...