Mullaly v. Holden

Decision Date16 January 1878
Citation123 Mass. 583
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesMartin Mullaly v. George H. Holden & another

Middlesex. Writ of Error to reverse a judgment rendered by the Superior Court, at March term 1877, affirming a judgment on default of the First District Court of Eastern Middlesex for $ 50 and costs, in an action of contract brought by George H. Holden and Warren Holden against Martin Mullaly. Plea, in nullo est erratum.

The error assigned was that the declaration alleged no legal cause of action. The declaration, as set forth in the record was as follows:

"And the plaintiffs say that the defendant passed to them a check a copy whereof is hereto annexed, and the same was cashed by them; that they duly presented said check for payment, but it was not paid, there being no funds to meet it; whereupon they duly notified the defendant, who refused to repay the amount of the check or any part thereof; wherefore the defendant owes the plaintiffs the said amount and interest thereon.

"And for the same cause of action, the plaintiffs further say, that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $ 16, and presented to them in payment thereof said check, and the plaintiffs declined to accept the same, whereupon the defendant agreed to guarantee it, the plaintiffs thereupon receipting said indebtedness and paying the defendant the balance of $ 34; that they duly presented said check for payment, but it was not paid, there being no funds to meet it, whereupon they duly notified the defendant, who refused to repay the amount of said check or any part thereof; wherefore he owes the plaintiffs the said amount and interest thereon."

Annexed to the declaration was a copy of the check as follows "$ 50. Boston, November 15, 1876. Shoe & Leather National Bank. Pay to the order of M. Mullaly or bearer fifty dollars. Payable ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Mayor of Cambridge v. Dean
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1938
    ... ... Hickes, 4 Pick ... 497; Dryden v. Dryden, 9 Pick. 546; Tarbell v. Gray, 4 Gray, ... 444; Hollis v. Richardson, 13 Gray, 392; Mullaly v ... Holden, 123 Mass. 583; Farnum v. Aronson, 253 ... Mass. 464 , 466; G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 250, Section 4; ... Perkins v. Bangs, 206 Mass. 408 , ... ...
  • Small v. Foley
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 1896
    ...it has been held that it is sufficient to allege the agreement generally, without specifically averring that it was in writing. Mullaly v. Holden, 123 Mass. 583; Elting Vanderlyn, 4 Johns. 237; Piercy v. Adams, 22 Ga. 109; Cross v. Everts, 28 Tex. 523. The two classes of cases may not be st......
  • Southwick v. Spevak
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1925
    ...a purpose. [2][3][4] It is not good ground for demurrer that the bill did not aver that the agreements set out were in writing. Mullaly v. Holden, 123 Mass. 583; Cranston v. Smith, 6 R. I. 231. The defense of the statute of frauds, G. L. c. 259, § 1, and chapter 203, § 1, is an affirmative ......
  • Southwick v. Spevak
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1925
    ... ... Mullaly ... v. Holden, 123 Mass. 583. Cranston v. Smith, 6 ... R.I. 231. The defence of the statute of frauds, G.L.c. 259, ... Section 1, and c. 203, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT