(Download) "Charlestown Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Wolf" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Charlestown Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Wolf
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 10, 1941
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 71 KB
Description
DONAHUE, Justice. The plaintiff is the payee named in a promissory note in the sum of $17,500, signed by Alice L. Wolf as maker, dated January 26, 1923, payable in three years with interest at six per cent per annum, payable quarterly, and secured by a mortgage of real estate. The signature of the maker was witnessed. Below the signature of the maker the following words appear: 'January 26, 1923. For value received, I guarantee and promise to pay the above note and interest, according to the tenor thereof, waiving demand and notice. No extension or indulgence or partial release shall prevent my remaining fully liable.' For convenience, we follow the plaintiff's brief in referring to the words above quoted as the 'memorandum.' The memorandum was signed by Bernard M. Wolf, the defendants' intestate, and his signature was witnessed. On the reverse of the instrument appear credits on account of interest and principal, which show the balance unpaid on the note to be $8,373.88. It was agreed by the parties that the payments made on the note were not made by Bernard M. Wolf or by the defendants, his administrators. The above is all the evidence introduced at the trial, which was in a district court. The fundamental question here argued by the parties is whether recovery on the instrument above set forth is barred by the statute of limitations. The Judge in the District Court found for the plaintiff on a count in the declaration which alleged that the defendants' intestate guaranteed the payment of the note with interest, and 'promised and agreed to pay the plaintiff said note and interest in case of default in payment thereof by the maker of said note.' The Judge reported to the Appellate Division his refusal to give various rulings requested by the defendants. The Appellate Division held that there was prejudicial error in the refusal of the trial Judge to give various requests for rulings filed by the defendants, to the effect that there should have been a finding for the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, that a finding for the plaintiff was not warranted, and that the liability of the defendants' intestate was that of a guarantor and not the liability of a comaker. The Appellate Division entered the order: 'Finding for the plaintiff vacated, judgment to be entered for the defendants.' The plaintiff has appealed from this order.
 "Charlestown Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Wolf" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}