Stone v. Clough
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Teovee, for a promissory note, which the plaintiffs alleged to have been signed by them, dated October fifth, 1855, wherein the plaintiffs promised to pay the defendant, or bearer, one hundred and fourteen dollars, in one year from date, with interest annually, and to have been converted by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Teovee, for a promissory note, which the plaintiffs alleged to have been signed by them, dated October fifth, 1855, wherein the plaintiffs promised to pay the defendant, or bearer, one hundred and fourteen dollars, in one year from date, with interest annually, and to have been converted by the defendant. Plea, the general issue. ■ The plaintiffs proved that they hired of the defendant $114, in moneys upon the day of the date of said note, and gave him their note for that amount, payable in one year, .and gave him a mortgage to secure the note; that on the eleventh day of February, 1856, they…
1Opinion of the CourtSaegent, J.
That trover may be maintained for a promissory note wrongfully converted while it remains unpaid, and while it is the evidence of a subsisting contract and liability to pay, is too well settled to call for any citation of authorities; and that any written security, or other paper containing evidence of a title, or of a subsisting contract, may be the foundation of this action, cannot admit of dispute. But upon the question raised in the case before us, there may be room for difference of opinion, as there would seem to be some conflict in the authorities upon that subject. The defendant’s…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lowremore v. BerrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
- Pierce v. GilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
- Todd v. CrookshanksNew York Supreme Court · 1808
- Buck v. KentSupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
- Keeler v. FassettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.