Martin v. Farnum
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The writ was dated January 15th, 1850, and contained one general count for §600, money had and received. The specification was for two promissory notes. The first, for §100, dated August 7th, 1848, signed by the defendant, payable to Asa Martin, or order, in one year from date, with interest annually, and by said Martin endorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The writ was dated January 15th, 1850, and contained one general count for §600, money had and received. The specification was for two promissory notes. The first, for §100, dated August 7th, 1848, signed by the defendant, payable to Asa Martin, or order, in one year from date, with interest annually, and by said Martin endorsed to the plaintiff. The second, for §330, dated April 26th, 1848, signed by one C. W. Eaton, payable to the defendant, or order, in one year from date, with interest, and by him endorsed to the said Asa Martin, who himself endorsed the same over to the…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
Assumpsit for money had and received will lie, whenever the defendant has money in his hands which the plaintiff ought to have, or has made a promise to pay a sum which the plaintiff is entitled to receive. It is a liberal, equitable form of action, and courts have been disposed to uphold it when no rule of policy or strict law-interferes to prevent. Wright v. Butler, 6 Wendell’s Rep. 290; Eddy v. Smith, 13 Wendell 488; Irvine v. Hanlon, 10 Serg. & Rawle’s Rep. 219; 2 Term Rep. 370; 3 B. & Pul. 169.
It lies by the holder of a note, whether payee or indorsee, *195against the maker. This is well…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Scott v. LloydSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Eddy v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Ontario Bank v. WorthingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Commonwealth v. WaiteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Peirce v. ChaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.