Conn v. Coburn
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit for money paid. The defendant pleaded infancy, and the statute of limitations. To the first, the plaintiff replied that the money was paid for necessaries ; upon which issue was joined: to the second a promise within six years.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for money paid. The defendant pleaded infancy, and the statute of limitations. To the first, the plaintiff replied that the money was paid for necessaries ; upon which issue was joined: to the second a promise within six years. The writ was dated September 10, 1832. The plaintiff proved, that the defendant, on the thirtieth day of April, 1825, wished to purchase of Daniel Greenleaf, cloth for a coat, but Greenleaf not knowing the defendant refused to trust him : that the defendant, having conversed a short time with the plaintiff, purchased the cloth, and gave a negotiable note for…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker. J.
The verdict has established the fact that the subject matter of the purchase was necessaries. If the plaintiff, at the defendant's request, paid the money for necessaries, which the defendant could not otherwise procure, that money takes the character of necessaries.
“ Money advanced to an infant, to procure him liberation ‘ from an arrest which was for necessaries, or where he was £ in execution, may be recovered in assumpsit; but to entitle’the plaintiff to recover he must show the real transac-ción, and that the money was advanced under such circum- ‘ stances.” 5 Esp. Rep. 28,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Roberts v. WigginSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1817
- Merriam v. WilkinsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- M'Crillis v. HowSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1826
- Orvis v. KimballSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825
3Cited by1 opinion
- Edgerly v. ShawSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852