Parker v. Roberts

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: BRALEY
• Citation: 137 N.E. 295,243 Mass. 174
• Decision Date: 29 November 1922
• Parties: PARKER v. ROBERTS.

243 Mass. 174
137 N.E. 295

PARKER
v.
ROBERTS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Nov. 29, 1922.

Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division.

Action by George W. Parker against Blanche M. Roberts on a promissory note for $300. Finding for plaintiff, and case reported to the Appellate Division. From an order dismissing the report, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The answer contained a general denial, and a denial of signature and consideration, and also alleged fraud. The note sued on bore a blank indorsement by the payee and two special indorsements, the second of which was canceled. There was evidence that the consideration for the note was legal services performed in Boston, and that the payee was a member of the bar of Illinois, but not of Massachusetts. Plaintiff requested the following rulings of law, all of which were allowed:

[243 Mass. 175]‘(1) If the plaintiff is a holder of the note in question in due course, the matter of the consideration of that note is immaterial.

‘(2) No evidence has been presented that plaintiff is not a holder in due course.

‘(3) The payee of the note, Edwin K. Smith, is legally entitled to remuneration for services as attorney, if such services are performed, notwithstanding the fact that he is not a member of the bar of Massachusetts, if he is a member of the bar of another state. See Brooks v. Association of Master Pilots, 233 Mass. 168, 123 N. E. 511.

‘(4) The bearer of a note indorsed in blank is presumed to be a holder in due course. See G. L. ch. 107, § 31.’

The defendant requested the following rulings of law, all of which were refused:

‘(1) On all the evidence there must be a finding for the defendant.

‘(2) The note in said Smith's hands is without consideration and he was not a holder in due course.

‘(3) The burden is on the plaintiff to show that he is a holder in due course, or that some person under whom he claims is a holder in due course, and the plaintiff has not maintained this burden.

‘(4) As far as the evidence shows the plaintiff is simply an agent for the collection for E. K. Smith, and has no greater rights than E. K. Smith.

‘(5) The plaintiff is not a holder in due course.’

[137 N.E. 296]

Richard [243 Mass. 176]J. Lane, of Boston, for appellant.

Charles F. Choate, 3d, of Boston, for appellee.

BRALEY, J.

[3] The payee to whose order the promissory note in suit was made payable having indorsed it in blank before maturity, the plaintiff's possession of the note which he produced at the trial would be sufficient evidence of title on which to maintain the action if no further indorsement written on the instrument itself or upon a...