TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Caragulian v. Rudd

Garabed H. Caragulian v. Mary E. Rudd & another

Caragulian v. Rudd, 184 N.E. 717 (Mass. 1933)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 1, 1933
Judges
Lummus
Citations
184 N.E. 717282 Mass. 2601933 Mass. LEXIS 883

Opinion of the Court — Lummus

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Lummus, J.

This is an action of contract to recover the balance due upon a judgment against the defendants, who are husband and wife. The husband was defaulted. The wife defends on the ground that the plaintiff accepted a partial payment made by her “by her husband,” and the husband’s notes for the balance due upon the judgment, and not only said that he would release the wife but signed an unsealed paper reciting that in consideration of the partial payment the plaintiff agreed to accept it in full satisfaction of his judgment against her, reserving, however, the right to hold the husband upon the judgment.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff did not accept the husband’s notes in satisfaction of the wife’s obligation. See Barnett v. Rosen, 235 Mass. 244, 247 . The notes not being any part of the consideration for the unsealed paper, it was invalid as an accord and satisfaction because its expressed and only consideration was the payment of part of a sum undeniably due. Barnett v. Rosen, 235 Mass. 244,248 . Moss v. Goldstein, 254 Mass. 334 . Bascombe v. Inferrera, 271 Mass. 296, 301, 302 . Shumaker v. Lucerne-in-Maine Community Association, 275 Mass. 201, 205 . Dedham Lumber Co. v. Hartung, 278 Mass. 488 . Millett v. Temple, 280 Mass. 543, 550, 551 . Rosenblatt v. Holstein Rubber Co. *262 281 Mass. 297 . Accord and satisfaction being the only defence, the right of the plaintiff to judgment against the wife is apparent, and discussion of the requested rulings is unnecessary.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1933: 11936: 11939: 11947: 11950: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Emerson v. Deming23 N.E.2d 1016 (Mass. 1939)
  2. First National Bank v. Cartoni3 N.E.2d 177 (Mass. 1936)
  3. Bosworth v. Bosworth285 Mass. 82 (1933)
  4. Swartz v. Clayton92 N.E.2d 263 (Mass. 1950)
  5. Abramson v. Melannie Corp.12 Mass. App. Div. 80 (1947)

Most recent

  1. Swartz v. Clayton92 N.E.2d 263 (Mass. 1950)
  2. Abramson v. Melannie Corp.12 Mass. App. Div. 80 (1947)
  3. Emerson v. Deming23 N.E.2d 1016 (Mass. 1939)
  4. First National Bank v. Cartoni3 N.E.2d 177 (Mass. 1936)
  5. Bosworth v. Bosworth285 Mass. 82 (1933)

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 7

DepthCaseCited by
Barnett v. Rosen, 126 N.E. 386 (Mass. 1920) 28
Millett v. Temple, 182 N.E. 921 (Mass. 1932) 34
Rosenblatt v. Holstein Rubber Co., 183 N.E. 705 (Mass. 1933) 25
Shumaker v. Lucerne-in-Me. Cmty. Ass'n, 175 N.E. 469 (Mass. 1931) 18
Bascombe v. Inferrera, 171 N.E. 435 (Mass. 1930) 14
Moss v. Goldstein, 150 N.E. 91 (Mass. 1926) 13
Dedham Lumber Co. v. Hartung, 180 N.E. 298 (Mass. 1932) 12

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