Opinion · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Stevens v. Blunt
Stevens v. Blunt, 7 Mass. 240 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1810)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts
- Date
- 1810-11-15
- Topic
- litigation
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, (a) .) [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.]
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Stevens v. Blunt. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 17 opinions
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, (a)
.) [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.]