Hapgood v. Wellington
George R. Hapgood v. Maria R. Wellington & trustee
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. Allen, J.
It has been held in several cases, that, where a promissory note is given in consideration of the payee’s promise to do something for the maker, an action may be maintained on the note by the payee against the maker without proving performance on his own part. Waterhouse v. Kendall, 11 Cush. 128 . Traver v. Stevens, 11 Cush. 167 . Hodgkins v. Moulton, 100 Mass. 309, 311 . Backus v. Spaulding, 116 Mass. 418 . Hubon v. Park, 116 Mass. 541 . Turner v. Rogers, 121 Mass. 12 . And in Moseley v. Ames, 5 Allen, 163 , it was held that a note executed and delivered as collateral security for a guaranty entered into by the payee, upon which he was still responsible, might be proved by him against the insolvent estate of the maker. The present case falls within the principle of these decisions, and the entry must be Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.