Bank v. Rix
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, signed by the defendant, and Benjamin Fay, and others. The suit was against all the signers of the note, who were all defaulted except said Rix. The defence on his part was payment; and that he was a surety, and discharged by a new agreement for time, made by the plaintiffs with the principal ■ and he offered the said Fay, who had been defaulted, to prove the above facts.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, signed by the defendant, and Benjamin Fay, and others. The suit was against all the signers of the note, who were all defaulted except said Rix. The defence on his part was payment; and that he was a surety, and discharged by a new agreement for time, made by the plaintiffs with the principal ■ and he offered the said Fay, who had been defaulted, to prove the above facts. But he was rejected by the court as inadmissible ; and the jury having returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, the defendant moved for a new trial. We contend that a defendant on the record,…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
It is said that no objection was taken to the admissibility of the witness, at the trial, on account of *204interest in the costs; but the question was, whether judgment could in fact be rendered against the other defendants under the statute of July 4,1834, in case the defendant, Rix, should obtain a verdict. The statute is not drawn in very technical language, but we have no doubt that the legislature intended to relieve plaintiffs, in actions on contracts, from the rule by which, unless a good cause of action was shown against all the defendants who were joined in the suit, judgment could not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pillsbury v. CammettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1820