Case ID: mass_66/html/0233-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amos Cutter vs. Henry Collins.
    A note given to a father by the defendant in a bastardy process instituted by his daughter, in settlement of such process, and in consideration of her relinquishment of all claim for support of the child, is founded upon sufficient consideration, and may be sued in the name of the father, although he was but trustee for his daughter.
    This was an action of assumpsit upon a note, of which the following is a copy: “ Charlestown, December 6,1849. Value received, I promise to pay Amos Cutter, or order, three hundred dollars, to wit, fifteen dollars in cash, ten dollars in twelve days, and the balance in payments of twelve dollars, fifty cents each, till all is paid; the payments are to be made every two months. $300. Henry Collins. Witness, Josiah Brackett.” The defendant relied upon a want of consideration, and at the trial before Bishop, J., in the court of common pleas, March term, 1852, he introduced evidence tending to show that the note was given on settlement of a bastardy process instituted by a daughter of the plaintiff, under Rev. Sts. c. 49; that the defendant was under arrest on said process, and that, upon giving the note now in suit, and in consideration thereof, the proceedings were stopped, and all claim for the support of the child relinquished, and that the note was given in trust for the benefit of the daughter. It also appeared that, at the time of the seduction, and for a long time before, and till the trial, the daughter of the plaintiff was in his family, and that the relation of master and servant existed between them. The court instructed the jury that if they found that the note was given to the father in trust for the daughter, and that the staying of the process was the consideration thereof, or if they found that the relation of master and servant existed between the plaintiff and his daughter, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      J. Davis, for the defendant.
    
      J. Q. A. Griffin, for the plaintiff.
   By the Court.

The instructions as to consideration were right; the suit was rightly brought on the note in the name of the payee. Exceptions overruled.