Kidder v. Blake
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. Upon the following note : $4000. Manchester, February 26, 1861. For value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay John S. Kidder and E. C. Greorge, or their order, four thousand dollars on demand with interest semi-annually. JOHN B. CLARKE, E. W. BLAKE, ' E. TV. BLAKE & CO. The defendants were'declared against as "partners, jointly negotiating under the firm of E. TV. Blake & Co., and the same Edwin TV. Blake and the same John B. Clarke as individuals.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Upon the following note : $4000. Manchester, February 26, 1861. For value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay John S. Kidder and E. C. Greorge, or their order, four thousand dollars on demand with interest semi-annually. JOHN B. CLARKE, E. W. BLAKE, ' E. TV. BLAKE & CO. The defendants were'declared against as "partners, jointly negotiating under the firm of E. TV. Blake & Co., and the same Edwin TV. Blake and the same John B. Clarke as individuals.” Blake was defaulted. December 1, 1857, the plaintiffs, being partners in trade in Manchester, sold their stock of goods…
1Opinion of the CourtBartlett, J.
If the sale of the stock of goods was the consideration for the defendant’s note, the plaintiffs cannot recover upon it, for that stock included intoxicating liquors, which neither Blake nor Wilkins had any license to sell. Coburn v. Odell, 30 N. H. 540. And if the surrender of the notes of Blake & Wilkins be regarded as part of the consideration, the case is not altered, for the illegal sale of the liquors would still form part of the consideration. Waite v. Jones, 1 Bing. N. C. 656; Story Cont, sec. 459. Nor do we think the plaintiffs could recover in this action, if the surrender of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Viser v. BertrandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1853
- Sherman v. BarnardNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Higgins v. StrongIndiana Supreme Court · 1836