McDuffie v. Dame
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note dated October 31, 1835, for $2T89, payable to one John Cloutman, or order, on demand and interest, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The signature and indorsement of the note were admitted. The defendant offered in set-off his account against the said Cloutman, and proved that in March, 1838, the note in suit was in the possession of the payee.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note dated October 31, 1835, for $2T89, payable to one John Cloutman, or order, on demand and interest, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The signature and indorsement of the note were admitted. The defendant offered in set-off his account against the said Cloutman, and proved that in March, 1838, the note in suit was in the possession of the payee. The court ruled that the set-off was inadmissible ; and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for the amount of the note. Whereupon the defendant moved that the verdict be set aside, for misdirection of the court.…
1Opinion of the CourtUpham, J.
The note in suit remained in the promisee’s hands until long after it had become discredited ; and it is contended by the defendant that for this cause it is liable to set-off. But the plaintiff relies on the case of Chandler vs. Drew, 6 N. H. Rep. 469, to sustain the position that a set-off is inadmissible, even under such circumstances.
The case of Chandler vs. Drew is opposed to the prevailing doctrine as to set-off in other states; 'but this arises from the fact that the rule there adopted is based upon the particular provisions of our statute.
We are not disposed to doubt the propriety of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chandler v. DrewSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834