Huntington v. Shute
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ogdin v. First National Bank of St. Marys (W. Va. 1927)
- Hudson v. Moon (Utah 1913)
- Purcell v. Armour Packing Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1908)
- Leonard v. Woodward (Mass. 1940)
- Chaltas v. Chronis (Mass. 1927)
- Wolff v. Perkins (Mass. 1925)
- Greeley v. Greeley (Me. 1920)
- Crowdis v. Hayward (Mass. 1919)
- Mercantile Guaranty Co. v. Hilton (Mass. 1906)
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 rule is well settled in this Commonwealth that, in an action on a promissory note, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the fact that it is given for a valuable consideration. While the production of the note, with the admission or proof of the signature, makes a prima facie case, yet if the defendant puts in evidence of a want of consideration, the burden of proof does not shift, but remains upon the plaintiff, who must satisfy the jury, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the note was for a valid consideration. Morris v. Bowman, 12 Gray, 467. Estabrook v. Boyle, 1 Allen, 412. Smith v. Edgeworth, 3 Allen, 233. Perley v. Perley, 144 Mass. 104.
It does not appear from the reports of these cases whether the note declared on in each contained the words “ value received.” These words, however, were in the note in suit in the case of Delano v. Bartlett, 6 Cush. 364, but the case was decided on the general rule. See also Noxon v. De Wolf, 10 Gray, 343, 346; Simpson v. Davis, 119 Mass. 269.
We can see no reason for changing the rule so well established, merely because the note contains the words “ value received.”
Exceptions sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.