TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fenno v. Gay

Isaac Fenno v. Clarence H. Gay

Fenno v. Gay, 15 N.E. 87 (Mass. 1888)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 16, 1888
Citations
15 N.E. 87146 Mass. 118
Headnotes
Demand Note— Statute of Limitations. An action brought on May 21, 1886, on a promissory note dated May 20, 1880, and payable “ on demand after date,” is barred by the statute of limitations.
Summary
Contract against the defendant, as the maker of a promissory note dated May 20, 1880, payable “on demand, after date,” to the order of John Everitt, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. Writ dated May 21, 1886. The answer set np, among other defences, the statute of limitations. In the Superior Court, Brigham, C. J., who heard the case, without a jury, ruled that the action was not commenced within six years next after the cause of action accrued, and found for the defendant upon that ground only. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.

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.

By the Court.

It was held in Hitchings v. Edmands, 182 Mass. 338 , that a promissory note payable “on demand, after date,” is not a note payable on time, but “ is an ordinary demand note, payable at once on demand, on which an action could have been brought immediately after it was given, without any demand.” This is decisive of the case at bar. An action might have been brought oh the note in suit at any time on May 20, 1880, after it was given.

It follows that this suit, commenced May 21, 1886, was not brought within six year's after the cause of action accrued, and that the statute of limitations is a bar.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
1889: 21892: 11897: 11898: 11902: 21908: 11911: 11920: 11926: 21927: 11928: 11929: 11930: 11935: 11939: 218892026peak 1889 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Citizens Bank of Pleasantville v. Taylor207 N.W. 570 (Iowa 1926)
  2. Updegraff v. City of Ottumwa226 N.W. 928 (Iowa 1929)
  3. Spragins v. McCaleb188 So. 251 (Ala. 1939)
  4. Kenyon v. Youngman40 F.2d 812 (D.D.C. 1930)
  5. Darby v. Darby45 So. 747 (La. 1908)
  6. Continental Oil Co. v. Horsey9 A.2d 607 (Md. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Continental Oil Co. v. Horsey9 A.2d 607 (Md. 1939)
  2. Spragins v. McCaleb188 So. 251 (Ala. 1939)
  3. Leshara State Bank v. Hoagland258 N.W. 538 (Neb. 1935)
  4. Kenyon v. Youngman40 F.2d 812 (D.D.C. 1930)
  5. Updegraff v. City of Ottumwa226 N.W. 928 (Iowa 1929)
  6. Hodges' Administrator v. Asher6 S.W.2d 451 (Ky. Ct. App. 1928)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Raymond v. N.Y., New Haven, & Hartford R.R., 65 N.E. 399 (Mass. 1902) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list