Case Name: Daniel Wild versus Samuel Fisher
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1824-03
Citations: 4 Pick. 421
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel Wild versus Samuel Fisher.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
Daniel Wild versus Samuel Fisher.
March term, 1824
A negotiable promissory note may be given in evidence under a money count, in afi action by the indorsee against the maker.
Assumpsit on several promissory notes, and for money lent and mon ?y paid. The action was submitted to referees, who awarded to the plaintiff the sum of 753 dollars ; also the further sum of 766 dollars and 40 cents, provided that, in the opinion of the Court, it was competent for Wild, as plaintiff, to give in evidence, under the money counts, three promissory notes, by him paid and held against the defendant as promisor, on two of which one Tisdale, and on the third one Boynton, was first indorser.
Fisher, pro se,
relied on the distinction between notes payable to bearer, and those payable to order, and cited Waynan v. Bend, 1 Campb. 175; Smith v. Chester, 1 T. R. 654 Chitty on Bills (6th ed.), 364.
Townsend, contra,
cited Pierce v. Crafts, 12 Johns. R. 90; Young v. Adams, 6 Mass. R. 189; Dimsdale v. Lanchester, 4 Esp. R. 201; 2 Phil, on Ev. (6th ed.), 14, 16 27, 30, 39; Bayley on Bills (4th ed.), 286, 287, 288; Le Sage v. Johnson, Forrest, 23; Raborg v. Peyton, 2 Wheat. 385; Fenner v. Meares, 2 W. Bl. 1269.

Opinion:
The Court,
(viz. Parker C. J., Putnam, Wilde, and Lincoln, JJ.) held the notes to be admissible in evidence, ana the plaintiff had judgment for both of the sums above mentioned.
See Bayley on Bills, (Phil, and Sewall's 2d ed.) 392, and cases then cited in the notes.