Rochester Savings Bank v. Chick
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on the following promissory note: 1900.00. Rochester, N. H., April 1, 1877. Six months after date, for value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay the Rochester Savings Bank nine hundred dollars. All the signers agree to be holden should the time of payment be extended. S. S. Chick & Co. John S. Haines. John B. Clark. Clark only defends, pleading the general issue with a brief statement of the statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on the following promissory note: 1900.00. Rochester, N. H., April 1, 1877. Six months after date, for value received, we jointly and severally promise to pay the Rochester Savings Bank nine hundred dollars. All the signers agree to be holden should the time of payment be extended. S. S. Chick & Co. John S. Haines. John B. Clark. Clark only defends, pleading the general issue with a brief statement of the statute of limitations. He is a surety for Chick & Co., and was known to be such by the plaintiffs when they took the note. Without his knowledge, and without his consent except…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The extension of the time of payment of the note by the plaintiffs by a valid and binding contract with the principal makers, and with knowledge that the defendant Clark signed the note as surety, had the effect of discharging Clark unless he assented to the extension. Grafton Bank v. Woodward, 5 N. H. 99, 105 ; Wheat v. Kendall, 6 N. H. 504; Watriss v. Pierce, 32 N. H. 560. The agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants Chick & Co. for an extension of time, in the absence of anything in the case to the contrary, must be taken to be a valid agreement, and one upon a good…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Norris v. WardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
3Cited by2 opinions
- Conway Savings Bank v. DowSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897
- Merchants National Bank v. WorsterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910