Sloan v. McCarty
| Decision Date | 05 February 1883 |
| Citation | 134 Mass. 245 |
| Parties | Thomas S. Sloan v. Daniel McCarty |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued October 6, 1882
Worcester. Contract upon the following instrument, signed by the defendant, and witnessed: Writ dated July 15, 1881. The answer set up, among other defences, the statute of limitations. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts, in substance as follows:
On April 5, 1874, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant a horse, for which the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff the sum of $ 85, and executed and delivered to him the instrument declared on. At the maturity of the instrument the defendant neglected to pay the same, and continued to keep possession of the horse until September 15, 1874, when the plaintiff demanded payment of the amount due on the instrument, which the defendant neglected and refused to make, but offered to return the horse to the plaintiff, who refused to receive it, for the reason that the horse had greatly depreciated in value, and was not then worth the amount due. The defendant requested the plaintiff to take the horse and sell it, and apply whatever he might receive therefor towards the payment of the amount due, and promised to pay the plaintiff the balance as soon as he could. The plaintiff agreed to do this, and the defendant delivered the horse to him, and, on September 26, 1874, the plaintiff sold it for the sum of twenty dollars, and indorsed that amount upon the instrument; and this action was brought to recover the balance due thereon.
If upon these facts, the plaintiff was entitled to recover, judgment was to be entered for him for the amount claimed; otherwise, for the defendant.
Judgment for the defendant.
F. T. Blackmer & M. H. Cowden, for the plaintiff.
B. W. Potter, for the defendant.
Field, J. C. Allen, Colburn & Holmes, JJ., absent.
The contract declared on contains a promise to pay to the plaintiff or order a certain sum of money in one month from date for a horse received of the plaintiff; if this were all it would be a promissory note, as the recital of the consideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleming v. Sherwood
...Poirier Mfg. Co. v. Kitts, 18 N.D. 556, 120 N.W. 558; Pfeiffer v. Norman, 22 N.D. 168, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 891, 133 N.W. 99; Sloan v. McCarty, 134 Mass. 245; Killam Schoeps, 26 Kan. 310, 40 Am. Rep. 313; Wright v. Traver, 73 Mich. 493, 3 L.R.A. 50, 41 N.W. 517; First Nat. Bank v. Alton, 60 Conn......
-
State Trading Corp. v. Toepfert
...Bank v. Blanchard, 7 Allen 333;Taylor v. Curry, 109 Mass. 36, 12 Am.Rep. 661;Costelo v. Crowell, 127 Mass. 293, 34 Am.Rep. 367;Sloan v. McCarty, 134 Mass. 245;Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass. 113, 72 N.E. 456,67 L.R.A. 33, 105 Am.St.Rep. 381;National Bank of Newbury v. Wentworth, 218 Mass. 30, ......
-
Gazlay v. Riegel
... ... Equipment Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 136 U.S. 268; ... Heryford v. Davis, 102 U.S. 235; Harkness v ... Russell, 118 U.S. 663; Sloan v. McCarty, 134 ... Mass. 245; Brown Bros. & Co. v. Billington, 163 Pa ... 76; Ernst v. Steckman, 74 Pa. 13; Overton v ... Tyler, 3 Pa. 347; ... ...
-
Cent. Nat. Bank v. Hubbel
...entire and absolute property of the said Sloan until paid for in fully by me.’ It was held that it was not a promissory note. Sloan v. McCarty, 134 Mass. 245. We are unable to perceive any difference in legal substance between the instrument then before the court and the one here presented.......