Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877

Prouty v. Wilson

Prouty v. Wilson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided October 3, 1877
123 Mass. 297; 1877 Mass. LEXIS 269

Counsel

Gr. F. Verry F. A. Gcaskill, for the defendants., W. S. B. Hopkins, for the plaintiff, was not called upon.

Prouty v. Wilson

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

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

By the Court.

The legal title in the note was in the administrator of the payee. The evidence warranted the jury in finding that both the defendants assented to and ratified the note in its altered form and thereby agreed to pay the same to the lawful holder, for the sufficient consideration of an agreement to forbear and an actual forbearance by those who apparently had the actual control of the note and the equitable interest therein. Exceptions overruled.

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