Phillips v. Eldridge
| Decision Date | 20 May 1915 |
| Citation | 108 N.E. 909,221 Mass. 103 |
| Parties | PHILLIPS v. ELDRIDGE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
David Stoneman and Alexander I. Stoneman, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
Dickson & Knowles, of Boston, for defendants.
There was evidence that the note here in suit was procured by duress practiced by the payee on the makers. If that evidence was believed, the plaintiff to recover had the burden of proving that he was a holder in due course as defined in R L. c. 73, § 69. The plaintiff and the payee, when called as adverse witnesses by the defendant, testified to facts which would have warranted a finding that the plaintiff was a holder in due course. But the jury were not bound to believe their testimony, although uncontradicted, and therefore a verdict for the plaintiff could not be directed as matter of law. When testimony warranting finding that the plaintiff was a holder in due course of a note originating in fraud is given by witnesses called by the plaintiff, it is settled that a verdict cannot be directed for the plaintiff as matter of law. Merchants' Bank v. Haverhill Iron Works, 159 Mass. 158, 34 N.E. 93; Stouffer v. Curtis, 198 Mass. 560, 82 N.E. 180. And see generally in this connection Lindenbaum v. N. Y., N.H. & Hartford Rd., 197 Mass 314, 84 N.E. 129; Demelman v. Brazier, 198 Mass 458, 465, 84 N.E. 856; Giles v. Giles, 204 Mass. 383, 385, 90 N.E. 595; Leary v. William G. Webber Co., 210 Mass. 68, 96 N.E. 136. The fact that the testimony in the case at bar was given by witnesses called by the defendant as adverse witnesses does not change the result. That was in effect decided in Emerson v. Wark, 185 Mass. 427, 70 N.E. 482.
It should be added that the testimony given by the adverse witnesses in the case at bar did not have to be disbelieved in toto to warrant a finding in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff testified that in case the note sued on was not paid by the defendants no credit was to be allowed to the payee by reason of the transfer of the note to him by the payee. This testimony, taken in connection with the intimacy between the plaintiff and the payee and the payee's testimony that he was to give the makers credit for $826 in the event of the sale of one of the cranberry bogs, justified a finding that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course even if the story told by the plaintiff and the payee was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrett v. Brooks Hospital, Inc.
...called by the plaintiff 2 or by the defendant, it could have been disregarded in whole or in part by the jury. Phillips v. Eldridge, 221 Mass. 103, 104, 108 N.E. 909; Hall v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 254 Mass. 95, 99-100, 149 N.E. 675; Cook v. Cole, 273 Mass. 557, 559, 174 N.E. 2......
-
Cook v. Cole
...given by such adverse party even if it had been uncontradicted (Emerson v. Wark, 185 Mass. 427, 70 N. E. 482;Phillips v. Eldridge, 221 Mass. 103, 104, 108 N. E. 909;Gordon v. Bedard, 265 Mass. 408, 411, 164 N. E. 374), and, a fortiori, was not bound by it where, as here, it was contradicted......
-
Elbar Realty, Inc. v. City Bank & Trust Co.
...(and not merely the burden of going forward with evidence), 'of proving that he was a holder in due course.' See Phillips v. Eldridge, 221 Mass. 103, 104, 108 N.E. 909; Back Bay Natl. Bank v. Brickley, 254 Mass. 261, 268, 150 N.E. 11; Granlund v. Saraf, 263 Mass. 76, 81, 160 N.E. 408; Dodge......
-
National Bank of Republic v. Price
... ... sufficient for that purpose, and whether there is the jury at ... last must also decide." ... In ... Phillips v. Eldridge , 221 Mass. 103, 108 ... N.E. 909, the plaintiff, who had sued on a promissory note ... which he had purchased, testified that in ... ...