Woodward v. Bixby
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon the defendant’s promissory note for $1,000, dated May 14, 1892, payable to the order of the plaintiffs in four months after date. Verdict for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did business in Boston, Massachusetts, and the defendant resided in Manchester in this county.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon the defendant’s promissory note for $1,000, dated May 14, 1892, payable to the order of the plaintiffs in four months after date. Verdict for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did business in Boston, Massachusetts, and the defendant resided in Manchester in this county. The plaintiffs’ evidence tended to show that they had an overdue note for $1,000 signed by George Stoekbridge, a nephew of the defendant, and indorsed by his father-in-law, of which the consideration was money loaned by them to Stoekbridge; that when urged to pay this note, Stoekbridge proposed to give a note…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The motions for a nonsuit and for setting aside the verdict raise the same question, namely, whether there was evidence from which it was competent for the jury to find a verdict for tbc plaintiffs. There was evidence that would warrant the jury in finding that Stockbridge obtained the defendant’s signature by fraud, and that the plaintiffs received the note before maturity, without knowledge or notice of the fraud, in payment of Stockbridge’s overdue note for the same sum. But whenever one of two innocent persons must suffer from the acts of a third, he who has enabled another to occasion…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Citizens' National Bank v. SmithSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875
- Cole v. BoardmanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gerry v. NeugebauerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Utah State Nat. Bank v. LivingstonUtah Supreme Court · 1927
- King v. LambertLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1919