Chandler v. Davis
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit for money paid. The plaintiff claimed to recover a sum equal to one half of two joint and several notes for $1000 each, dated March 20, 1860, signed by Pratt and the defendant, and payable to one Hanson, one in one year, and the other in two years from date, less $161.65, the amount endorsed on one of them.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for money paid. The plaintiff claimed to recover a sum equal to one half of two joint and several notes for $1000 each, dated March 20, 1860, signed by Pratt and the defendant, and payable to one Hanson, one in one year, and the other in two years from date, less $161.65, the amount endorsed on one of them. It was agreed that Pratt and the defendant, on the 20th day of March, 1860, bought a wood lot of Hanson and gave the notes, as part of the price, to Hanson, who had died before this trial. The plaintiff then introduced as a witness, one Locke, who testified that he acted as an…
1Opinion of the CourtPerley, C. J.
When a note or bill is found, after payment is due, in possession of a party, who was bound to pay it, this is prima facie evidence that it has been paid, and that it was paid by the party who has possession of it. 2 Greenl. Ev. sec. 527 ; Smith v. Smith, 15 N. H. 55. This is a very familiar rule of evidence applied in every day’s practice; and the reason of the rule is obvious, for, in the usual course of business, the note will be delivered on payment to the party that pays it. Brembridge v. Osborne, 1 Stark. 374. And there can be no presumption, till the fact is proved, that two or more…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hoit v. RussellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876