Royal Bank of Liverpool v. Grand Junction Railroad
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. New York Central Railroad (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1963)
- McClure v. Supreme Lodge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1899)
- Mutual Life Insurance v. Yates County National Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- Mutual Life Insurance v. Yates County Nat. Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- Costelo v. Crowell (Mass. 1883)
- McLaughlin v. Randall (Me. 1877)
- Third National Bank v. Eastern Railroad (Mass. 1877)
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
That the bonds declared upon were sealed instruments was settled by Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 Allen, 381.
The corporate seal having been affixed by the printer, by the direction of the officers of the corporation; and they having adopted his act, and subsequently signed and issued the bonds ; the sealing was duly made, and the instruments became obligatory upon the corporation. This is no more nor less than constantly takes place when a scrivener prepares and affixes a seal to a deed which the grantor thereupon signs and delivers. The practice is of unquestionable validity, and the authorities for it are abundant. “ If a stranger seal an instrument by the allowance, or the commandment precedent, or agreement subsequent, of the person who is to seal it, that is sufficient.” Cruise Dig. tit. 32, c. 2, § 55.
The allowance of the proposed amendment to the defendants’ answer would have been unavailing. A sealed instrument conclusively imports a consideration. And these bonds, having been duly executed and delivered, the holders could have maintained an action upon them, if their delivery had been merely gratuitous, and no value had ever been given for them. A delivery of a portion, as collateral security for the payment of the residue, is sufficient. If the defendants wish to avail themselves of the fact that a part were held only as collateral security for the rest, they cannot do so until they have paid in full the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.