Perry v. Bigelow

Decision Date19 January 1880
Citation128 Mass. 129
PartiesJohn D. Perry v. James W. Bigelow
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Argued October 1, 1879

Worcester. Contract on the following promissory note signed by the defendant and indorsed by the payee: "$ 5000. St Louis, Mo., January 11, 1877. Four months after date I promise to pay to Frank T. Iglehart, cashier, or order, at the banking-house of Bartholow, Lewis & Co., in St Louis, Mo., five thousand dollars for value received negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount, and with interest from maturity at the rate of ten per cent per annum, I having deposited with him as collateral security the following described certificates of the capital stock of the Scotia Lead Mining Company, No. 40 for 25 shares 41 for 25 shares 42 for 25 shares 43 for 50 shares 44 for 130 shares and 39 for 25 shares, aggregating 280 shares. And hereby authorize him to sell the same at public or private sale or otherwise at his option, on the non-performance of this promise, without notice, and authorize him to use, transfer or hypothecate the same at his option, he being required, on payment of the amount loaned as specified herein, and at any time before said collateral security shall have been sold, to surrender the same."

Trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., who reported the case for the consideration of this court in substance as follows:

The defendant offered to show that, on January 11, 1877, the parties made an oral contract, by which the plaintiff was to let the defendant have $ 5000 in money, less the interest for four months, and the defendant was to transfer to the plaintiff certain shares of the Scotia Lead Mining Company and at the end of the four months the defendant was to have the right to have the stock back by paying the $ 5000, and, if he did not do so, the plaintiff was to have the stock absolutely, and the defendant was not to pay the $ 5000; that the parties were at the banking-house, of which the plaintiff was president, and he suggested that he would like to have it appear as a bank transaction, and accordingly went to the adjoining room, where was the cashier, and returned to the defendant with the note declared on; and that the same was then duly executed by the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff, who paid him $ 5000, less four months' discount. It was agreed that the note was made payable to the cashier for the accommodation of the plaintiff; and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • The Northern Trading Company, a Corp. v. The Drexel State Bank of Chicago, a Corporation
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 21, 1917
    ... ...          A ... provision merely authorizing the sale of the collateral if ... the note be dishonored, does not have this effect. Perry ... v. Bigelow, 128 Mass. 129; Towne v. Rice, 122 ... Mass. 67; Biegler v. Merchants' Loan & T. Co. 62 ... Ill.App. 560; Arnold v. Rock River ... ...
  • Cockrell v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1936
    ... ... 726; Ellis v. Hamilton, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 512; ... Booske v. Gulf Ice Co., 24 Fla. 550, 5 So. 247; ... Solary v. Stultz, 22 Fla. 263; Perry v ... Biglow, 128 Mass. 129; Hall v. First Nat. Bank, ... 173 Mass. 16, 53 N.E. 154, 44 L.R.A. 319, 73 Am.St.Rep. 255; ... Wilson v. Wilson, 26 ... ...
  • Leach v. Nelson
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1922
    ...that a parol agreement was made whereby stock was to be received as the equivalent of the cash. This clearly could not be shown. Perry v. Bigelow, 128 Mass. 129. The nature of the question is not altered, in my opinion, by the statement of substantially the same defense in terms of conditio......
  • Leach v. Nelson
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1922
    ...that a parol agreement was made whereby stock was to be received as the equivalent of the cash. This clearly could not be shown. Perry v. Bigelow, 128 Mass. 129. nature of the question is not altered, in my opinion, by the statement of substantially the same defense in terms of conditional ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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