Perkins v. Challis
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a note dated December 25th, 1814, for 125 dollars, in two years. It was made payable to Amos A. Brewster, or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a note dated December 25th, 1814, for 125 dollars, in two years. It was made payable to Amos A. Brewster, or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and at the trial here, last April term, offered evidence that the plaintiff purchased the note at a considerable discount, though this appeared to have been some time before it became due ; that, after a demand on the maker, seasonable notice was given to the endorser, who had agreed to indemnify the plaintiff in the prosecution of this action; and that the…
1Opinion of the Court
At the present term that opinion was pronounced by
W oodbüry, J.
It is well settled, as a general principle, that a note, though invalid between the original parties, is good in the hands of an endorsee.
The exceptions to this principle belong to two classes. In one of them the endorsee is not implicated or privy to the original transaction ; and still the note cannot be rceov-ered, because executed by fraud (1) or for some consideration, which statutes in express terms declare shall render the contract “void to all intents and purposes” (2)
*255In the other class the endorsee is implicated or privy…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bebee v. President, Directors & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1806
- Russel v. BallNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Perley v. ChandlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Olmsted v. StewartNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3Cited by2 opinions
- Clark v. RickerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Doe v. BurnhamSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1855