Case Name: Phinehas Stevens, Plaintiff in Error, versus John Blunt
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1810-11
Citations: 6 Tyng 240
Docket Number: 
Parties: Phinehas Stevens, Plaintiff in Error, versus John Blunt
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
Phinehas Stevens, Plaintiff in Error, versus John Blunt
A promissory note payable to B, or order, “ on the-day of-, or when he completes the building according to contract,” was holden to be payable at a day certain, and negotiable.
Error to reverse a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas foi this county, wherein the said Stevens was plaintiff, and the said Blunt was defendant.
The original action was case upon a promissory note, signed by Blunt, payable to one Solomon Stevens, or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff.
At the trial in the court below, the plaintiff gave in evidence a note of the following tenor, viz. “ Trenton, Oct. 29, 1806. This may certify that I do agree to pay unto Solomon Stevens or order forty dollars by the twentieth of May, or when he completes the building according to contract. John Blunt,” with the following endorsement on the back thereof, viz. “ Pay to Phinehas Stevens or order. Solomon Stevens.”
The defendant’s counsel objected that the action was not maintainable, because the said note was payable on a contingency, * and not at all events, and therefore was not [ * 241 ] negotiable. And of this opinion was the Court of Common Pleas, and they so instructed the jury, who found their /erdict accordingly for the defendant. The plaintiff’s counsel filed a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the court, which was sealed by the chief justice of that court, and from which the foregoing statement is taken.

Opinion:
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,
.) [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.]