Case ID: mass_290/html/0083-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lummus, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walter Osenenko vs. Frank S. Hollis.
    Suffolk.
    December 5, 1934.
    February 28, 1935.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Crosby, Field, Donahue, & Lummus, JJ.
    
      Bills and Notes, Holder in due course. Evidence, Relevancy and materiality.
    At the trial of an action against the maker of a negotiable promissory note by a holder to whom it was delivered, indorsed in blank, before maturity, where the defendant relied in defence on a contention that the payee owed him much more than the amount of the note, no error appeared in an instruction to the jury that if the plaintiff took the note for value and in good faith, he could recover, without regard to the state of the account between the defendant and the payee.
    At such trial there was no error in excluding evidence of payments made by the defendant to the payee, with the knowledge of the plaintiff, whether before or after the making of the note, there being nothing to show that the payments were made on account of the note.
    Contract. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated October 3, 1932, and afterwards amended.
    On removal to the Superior Court, the action was tried before Morton, J. Material evidence and exceptions by the defendant are described in the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $164.75. The defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      E. M. Shanley, for the defendant.
    
      A. W. Ingalls, for the plaintiff.
   Lummus, J.

The plaintiff is the present holder of a promissory note for $150, dated April 20, 1932, payable in three months, made by the defendant to the order of Gill Engineering Company, and indorsed in blank and delivered to the plaintiff on April 23, 1932. The defendant offered to prove that Gill Engineering Company owed him much more than the amount of the note. The judge instructed the jury that if they were satisfied that the plaintiff took the note for value, in good faith, he could recover, without regard to the state of the account between the maker and the payee.. Of this, the defendant has no cause to complain. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Gray-United Stores Inc., ante, 77.

There was no error in excluding evidence of payments made by the maker to the payee, with the knowledge of the plaintiff, whether before or after the making of the note. There was no evidence nor offer of proof that the payments were made on account of this note.

All the exceptions of the defendant have been considered, although not all need discussion in this opinion. We find no error.

Exceptions overruled.