Merchants National Bank v. Worster
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note for $100, dated March 27, 1906, and payable two months from date. Transferred from the February term, 1910, of the superior court by Chamberlin, J. The defendant filed a special plea alleging that he signed the note as a surety with the knowledge of the plaintiff’; that one Peckham, the principal, failed to pay the note when it became due and obtained an extension of the time of payment to July 27,1906, by paying to the plaintiff interest in…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note for $100, dated March 27, 1906, and payable two months from date. Transferred from the February term, 1910, of the superior court by Chamberlin, J. The defendant filed a special plea alleging that he signed the note as a surety with the knowledge of the plaintiff’; that one Peckham, the principal, failed to pay the note when it became due and obtained an extension of the time of payment to July 27,1906, by paying to the plaintiff interest in advance to that date; and that the defendant was not notified of the non-payment of the note when it first became due.…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
If it is assumed, in accordance with the defendant’s claim, that he was merely a surety on the note and that the plaintiff understood that such was in fact his relationship to the transaction, the defence of want of notice of the dishonor of the note is unavailing. In Conway Savings Bank v. Dow, 69 N. H. 228, it was held that a stipulation in a note giving the payees “ the right of collecting the whole or any part of this note at their own discretion, or of extending from time to time, by reception of interest in advance or otherwise, the payment of the whole or any part thereof without…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Conway Savings Bank v. DowSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897
- Rochester Savings Bank v. ChickSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1887