Estabrook v. Swett
Estabrook v. Swett
116 Mass. 303; 1874 Mass. LEXIS 90
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gillett v. Knowles (Mich. 1896)
- E. T. C. Corp. v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. (N.Y. 1936)
- Patch v. Cashman (Mass. 1923)
- Colil v. Massachusetts Security Corp. (Mass. 1923)
- Lima v. Campbell (Mass. 1914)
- South Bend & Mishawaka Gas Co. v. Jensen (Ind. 1914)
- Northampton National Bank v. Smith (Mass. 1897)
- Citizens' Street Railroad v. Horton (Ind. Ct. App. 1897)
- Lyons v. Allen (D.C. Cir. 1897)
- Drohan v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. (Mass. 1894)
- Henninger v. Heald (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1894)
- Johnson v. Burnside (S.D. 1892)
- Wiswall v. Harriman (N.H. 1883)
- Carroll v. People (Ill. App. Ct. 1883)
- Mullen v. Old Colony Railroad (Mass. 1879)
- Bradlee v. Warren Five Cents Savings Bank (Mass. 1879)
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
The plaintiffs in this case seek to recover on the original account, on the ground that they were induced to take the note of a third person in payment, through the fraud of the defendant. The plaintiffs have not proved that the note was absolutely worthless. They cannot therefore maintain this action without surrendering the note to the defendant. Coolidge v. Brigham, 1 Met. 547.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.