History
  • No items yet
midpage
Stevens v. Blunt
7 Mass. 240
Mass.
1810
Check Treatment
Putnam,

for the defendant in error, now urged the objection which he made successfully at the Common Pleas.

But the Court held the note payable absolutely at a day certain, and they reversed the judgment of the Common Pleas, and ordered a new trial at the bar of this Court.

Story for the plaintiff in error, (a)

.) [This decision is clearly wrong. The promisor had a right of election lo pay either at the time mentioned, or when the building should be completed, according to contract. The latter event might never take place; and, therefore, the note, at the election of the promisor, was payable on a contingency, which might, or might not, happen.—Ed.]

Case Details

Case Name: Stevens v. Blunt
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Nov 15, 1810
Citation: 7 Mass. 240
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.