Lombard v. Bryne
| Decision Date | 27 February 1907 |
| Parties | LOMBARD et al. v. BRYNE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Julian C. Woodman, for plaintiffs.
Stephen H. Tyng and M. L. Sanborn, for defendants.
The question at the trial was whether, as between the plaintiff and the defendant Hellen, there was a consideration for Hellen's signature upon the note. The production of the note made a prima facie case on this point, in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant sought to meet it by showing that the presumption which would ordinarily arise from the form of the note was not well founded, and that there was no consideration for his signing, inasmuch as he affixed his signature merely for the accommodation of the plaintiffs. On the question whether there was a consideration for the note, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff throughout the trial. The evidence offered by the defendant was on that issue, and was intended to meet and answer the contentions of the plaintiffs. If, on the whole evidence, the matter in dispute was left in an even balance, the plaintiffs would fail.
This is not like a case where the defendant seeks to avoid the effect of prima facie evidence by the proof of an independent fact outside of the issue, whereby he is relieved from liability. In such a case the defendant has the burden of proving the fact, and if he fails, the original prima facie case prevails.
The present case cannot be distinguished in principle from Perley v. Perley, 144 Mass. 104, 10 N.E. 726. See Delano v. Bartlett, 6 Cush. 364; Broult v. Hanson, 158 Mass. 17, 32 N.E. 900; Temple v. Phelps, 192 Mass. 297, 79 N.E. 482.
The jury should have been instructed that, on the whole evidence, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the defendants' indorsement was for a valuable consideration.
Exceptions sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. Woodward
...instruments law this court has followed its former rule. Huntington v. Shute, 180 Mass. 371, 62 N.E. 380,91 Am.St.Rep. 309;Lombard v. Bryne, 194 Mass. 236, 80 N.E. 489. The first of these cases seems really to have turned upon an instruction by the trial judge as to the meaning of the words......
-
Leonard v. Woodward
...since the passage of the negotiable instruments law this court has followed its former rule. Huntington v. Shute, 180 Mass. 371. Lombard v. Bryne, 194 Mass. 236 . first of these cases seems really to have turned upon an instruction by the trial judge as to the meaning of the words "value re......
-
Salem Trust Co. v. Deery
... ... was any evidence rebutting the prima facie presumption ... established by G. L. c. 107, § 47. Lombard v. Bryne, ... 194 Mass. 236, 238, 80 N.E. 489; Wolff v. Perkins, ... 254 Mass. 10, 13, 149 N.E. 691. It has been said by this ... court that a ... ...
-
Salem Trust Co. v. Deery
...on the plaintiff, if there was any evidence rebutting the prima facie presumption established by G. L. c. 107, § 47. Lombard v. Bryne, 194 Mass. 236, 238, 80 N. E. 489;Wolff v. Perkins, 254 Mass. 10, 13, 149 N. E. 691. It has been said by this court that a verdict can rarely be directed in ......