Case ID: mass_112/html/0450-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Colt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Susanna M. Holcomb vs. Heman Beach.
    The holder may maintain an action in his own name upon a promissory note payable to bearer, although the note is a part of an estate of which he is the administrator.
    Contract upon a promissory note signed by the defendant, and payable to Vincent Holcomb or bearer.
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., without a jury, it appeared that the plaintiff was the widow of Vincent Holcomb the payee of the note, and the administratrix of his estate; that the note was a part of that estate; and that she had not rendered a final account of her administration.
    The court ruled that the plaintiff could maintain the action, and gave judgment for the amount of the note. The defendant excepted.
    AT. Fuller, for the defendant.
    AT. B. Stevens, for the plaintiff.
   Colt, J.

There was evidence sufficient to warrant a jury in finding for the plaintiff. It is no objection to the action that the nominal plaintiff is not beneficially interested in the avails of the note. Possession of a negotiable promissory note payable to bearer is sufficient evidence of title. Pettee v. Prout, 3 Gray, 502. The privity which is required is shown when an action is brought in the holder’s name, with the assent of the party in interest and prosecuted for his benefit. Beekman v. Wilson, 9 Met. 434, 437. It can make no difference in the application of these rules that the beneficial interest is in the nominal plaintiff as administratrix. Exceptions overruled.