Sartwell v. Humphrey
| Decision Date | 31 January 1884 |
| Citation | 136 Mass. 396 |
| Parties | John K. Sartwell v. Caroline Humphrey |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Contract on a guaranty. The case was sent to an auditor, who found the following facts:
The plaintiff, by an indenture dated January 18, 1883, and duly recorded, leased to James O. Egerton and Isaac F. Kendall the three upper stories of a building in Boston, for the term of ten years from March 1, 1873, at an annual rental of $ 3500.
Before the delivery of this indenture, the defendant, who is an aunt of Egerton, one of the lessees, executed a guaranty under seal, which was indorsed on the indenture, in the following terms:
After the delivery of the indenture, March 1, 1873, the lessees therein named entered into possession of the demised estate.
Subsequently during the term, namely, on March 6, 1879, said indenture was modified by a written agreement reducing the rent to $ 1500 a year.
Before this modification was made, the defendant gave her written assent to the same by signing, in January, 1879, the following: "I hereby assent to a modification of the foregoing lease by a reduction of the rent to fifteen hundred dollars a year, and such modification in no respect to impair or affect the above guaranty."
On June 1, 1879, there was due the plaintiff, by the terms of the lease, the sum of $ 3055. The defendant had notice of the default of the lessees, and the rent was demanded of her.
The defendant signed her name to the guaranty on Sunday, at the request of James O. Egerton, one of the lessees, and he represented to her that the plaintiff would not let him have the estate unless she signed the guaranty; that a man from the market was to sign it; that Kendall was to get one, and he another. The defendant signed for Egerton, and could not tell when she learned that she was the only signer.
The plaintiff did not know that the defendant's signature was made on Sunday; nor that it was represented to her that any other person was to sign said guaranty; and he acted with the utmost good faith in the whole transaction.
The auditor found for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 3055, and interest from June 1, 1879.
At the trial in this court, before Devens, J., without a jury, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sylvester v. Shea
...to make that finding of fact. Similar obscure language has been interpreted in this way. Swett v. Boyce, 134 Mass. 381, 387;Sartwell v. Humphrey, 136 Mass. 396;Morse, Williams & Co. v. Ellis, 172 Mass. 378, 52 N. E. 540. Interpreted thus favorably to the decision below, the report shows tha......
-
Sylvester v. Shea
...to make that finding of fact. Similar obscure language has been construed in this way. Swett v. Boyce, 134 Mass. 381 , 387. Sartwell v. Humphrey, 136 Mass. 396 . Morse, Williams & Co. v. Ellis, 172 Mass. 378 Interpreted thus favorably to the decision below, the report shows that there was e......
-
Cray v. Wells
...of the contract made the question of his liability one of fact for the jury. Parsons v. Gloucester Bank, 10 Pick. 533, 534;Sartwell v. Humphrey, 136 Mass. 396. The exceptions are sustained in each case because of the erroneous ruling to the effect that the acceptance referred to in the cont......
-
W.W. Cray v. Wells-Holmes Co., Inc.
... ... liability one of fact for the jury. Parsons v. Gloucester ... Bank, 10 Pick. 532, 534. Sartwell v. Humphrey, 136 ... Mass. 396 ... The exceptions are ... sustained in each case because of the erroneous ruling to the ... ...