Buckminster v. Wright
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on the common money counts. Facts found by the court. The plaintiff was a surety for the defendants, who were the principals on a note given by them to a bank. After six years,' by reason of partial payments made on the note by the defendants, they remained liable; but the statute of limitations became a defence to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on the common money counts. Facts found by the court. The plaintiff was a surety for the defendants, who were the principals on a note given by them to a bank. After six years,' by reason of partial payments made on the note by the defendants, they remained liable; but the statute of limitations became a defence to the plaintiff. Fxeter Bank v. Sullivan, 6 N. FI. 124; Kelley v. Sanborn, 9 N. II. 46; Whipple v. Stevens, 22 N H. 219, 226. But the plaintiff, supposing himself still liable, made a contract with one Farnum, in consequence of which Farnum paid the note to the bank with…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The plaintiff had a right to pay the note, and recover the amount of the defendants. He was not bound to set up the statute of limitations as a defence; and his making that defence would be useless to the defendants, because they remained liable to the payee. The defendants are the principals on the note, and ought to pay' it. When Farnum paid the money the defendants were liable to pay it, and if his payment was unauthorized and' voluntary, as they contend, the note remains unpaid so far as they are concerned, and they are still liable to pay it; and the circumstances of the payment and of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Owen v. WestonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- State Ex Rel. Thorndike v. CollinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
- Peaslee v. DudleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1884
- Hazen v. QuimbySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
- Willoughby v. HoldernessSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.