Ruggles v. Patten
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- First National Bank v. Swift (Mass. 1927)
- Fall River Savings Bank v. Lebel (Massachusetts District Court 1982)
- Fall River Savings Bank v. Lebel (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1982)
- Donovan v. Universal Motor Truck Co. (1st Cir. 1920)
- Farmers National Bank of Annapolis v. Venner (Mass. 1906)
- Wright v. Vermont Life Insurance (Mass. 1895)
- Indig v. . National City Bank (N.Y. 1880)
- Commercial National Bank of Chicago v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. (Wis. 1878)
- Austin v. Curtis & Walker (Vt. 1858)
- Nichols v. . Pool (N.C. 1854)
- Dougherty v. Western Bank (Ga. 1853)
- Carter v. Smith (Mass. 1852)
- President of the New Hope Delaware Bridge Co. v. Perry (Ill. 1850)
- Sumner v. Ford & Co. (Ark. 1841)
- Bond v. Storrs (Conn. 1840)
- Armistead v. Armisteads (Va. 1839)
- Snow v. Chandler (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1839)
- Burrows v. Hannegan (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana 1838)
- Bacon v. Dyer (Me. 1835)
- Olcott v. G. Banfill & E. Carlton (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1835)
- Watkins v. Crouch & Co. (Va. 1834)
- Baldwin v. Farnsworth (Me. 1833)
- Culp v. Fisher (Pa. 1833)
- M'Nairy v. Bell (Tenn. 1831)
- Caldwell v. Cassidy (New York Supreme Court 1828)
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
This is an action of assumpsit brought by the endorsee against one of several joint promisers in a negotiable note for the payment of money. The defendant pleads in bar, that one of the joint promisers, other than himself, had paid his share or proportion of the money promised to the promisee, before the note was assigned, and that, in consideration thereof, the promisee had acquitted all the promisers from any further demand on * the note. As the promise appears from the record to have been joint, if the defendant would avail himself of that fact, he snould have shown it as matter in abatement. A payment of part by one promiser cannot operate a discharge of the rest.
In a fourth plea the defendant says that the holder of the note was not present at the time and place appointed for payment But this is no bar to an action on a promise to pay money ; and the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.