McQuesten v. Bowman
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon a written contract, made by the defendant, October 28, 1841, to save tbe plaintiff harmless from certain notes therein described, on wbicb be was surety, and one Stowell was tbe principal, and which tbe plaintiff had been compelled to pay. Plea, tbe general issue. The contract did not state a consideration for its execution, and was not under seal.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a written contract, made by the defendant, October 28, 1841, to save tbe plaintiff harmless from certain notes therein described, on wbicb be was surety, and one Stowell was tbe principal, and which tbe plaintiff had been compelled to pay. Plea, tbe general issue. The contract did not state a consideration for its execution, and was not under seal. It was proved that the plaintiff was called upon to pay one of the notes mentioned in the contract, and, having first notified the defendant thereof, paid it before this action was commenced. Tbe plaintiff called said Stowell, who…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
This is a plain ease. The plaintiff* brings his action upon a contract by which the defendant agreed to indemnify and save him harmless for having signed certain notes as surety, upon which one Stowell was principal, and he produces a written contract of indemnity, and proves that he was called on to pay one of the notes mentioned, and, after having notified the defend*26ant, paid it before tbe commencement of this action. No exception was raised respecting a demand. It appears, from the evidence of Stowell, that the consideration for the promise by the defendant was an assignment to him, by…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Clark v. LeachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Penfied v. SkinnerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- Woods v. CarlisleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1832