Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1807

Josselyn v. Ames

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided October 15, 1807

3 Mass. 274

Cases that cite this one

47 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Oakley v. Boorman (New York Supreme Court 1839)
Richards v. Warring (N.Y. 1864)
Richards v. Warring (N.Y. 1864)
Orrick v. Colston (Va. 1850)
Ryan v. Spear (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1936)
Richards v. Warring (N.Y. 1864)
Orrick v. Colston (Va. 1850)
Orrick v. Colston (Va. 1850)
Orrick v. Colston (Va. 1850)
Camden v. McKoy (Ill. 1842)
Dean v. Hall (New York Supreme Court 1837)
Hodgkins v. Bond (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1818)
ELI PARISEAU (Mass. App. Ct. 2026)
Gregory v. Pike (Me. 1900)
Scott v. Calkin (Mass. 1885)
Welsh v. Ebersole (Va. 1881)
Rogers v. Gibbs (La. 1872)
Ford v. Mitchell (Wis. 1862)
Kern v. Von Phul, Waters & Co. (Minn. 1862)
Gushee v. Eddy (Mass. 1860)
Vore v. Hurst (Ind. 1859)
Pierse v. Irvine, Stone & McCormick (Minn. 1857)
Powell v. Commonwealth (Va. 1854)
Powell v. Commonwealth (Va. 1854)
Powell v. Commonwealth (Va. 1854)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The guarantor in that case was not the promisee, but a stranger, who warranted the payment to him. He cannot himself warrant to a third person payment of a note made payable *242to himself, and not negotiable. The plaintiff cannot recover in this action; but according to the facts reported, he may cancel what he has endorsed on the note, and instead thereof may write, “ For value received, I undertake to pay the money within mentioned to E. J.” And upon such an endorsement he may maintain an action on the facts reported.

Bay lies, for the defendant.

The parties afterwards agreed that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for the damages found by the verdict, without costs (2).

Memorandum. Nahum Mitchel, Esq., was. at this term, appointed one of the examiners of counsellors and attorneys within this county.

[Moies vs. Bird, 11 Mass. 436.—While vs. Howland, 9 Mass. 314.—Carver vs. Warren, 5 Mass. 545.—Sed vide Tenny vs. Prince, 4 Pick. 385.—S. C. 7 Pick. 243.— Burchard vs. Bartlett, 14 Mass. 279.—Brush vs. Reeve, Admr., 3 Johns. 439.—Jackson vs. Richards, 2 Caines’s Rep. 389.—Tilman vs. Wheeler, 17 Johns. 326.—Huntingdon vs. Harvey, 4 Con. R. 124.—Hill vs. Lewis, 1 Salk. 132.—Gov. &c. Bank of England vs. Newman, 1 Ld. R. 442—Bailey on Bills, ch. 5. § 1.—Chitty on Bills, 142.—Thomson on Bills, 101. 285.—Waynam vs. Bend, 1 Camp. 175 ; and see the notes to the three cases first cited.—Ed.]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.