Cummings v. Putnam
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for a horse, which it appeared was the plaintiff’s, and came into the defendant’s possession by virtue of the following written contract: “ Deering, September 8,1847. “ This certifies that I have this day delivered to Joseph Putnam a sorrel mare, to secure to him the payment of twenty-five dollars, which I owe him. If I do not pay him said sum in six days from date, the mare belongs to said Putnam, to pay said debt. t; Langdon B. Cummings.”
Read the full summary
Trover, for a horse, which it appeared was the plaintiff’s, and came into the defendant’s possession by virtue of the following written contract: “ Deering, September 8,1847. “ This certifies that I have this day delivered to Joseph Putnam a sorrel mare, to secure to him the payment of twenty-five dollars, which I owe him. If I do not pay him said sum in six days from date, the mare belongs to said Putnam, to pay said debt. t; Langdon B. Cummings.” The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that a short time after the contract was signed, before the parties-separated, a parol agreement…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
The plaintiff in this ease had pledged to the defendant the horse which is the subject of the controversy, to secure the payment of twenty-five dollars in six days. These terms were put in writing. But the parties after-wards agreed upon a place for the pledge to be kept, where *571the plaintiff might find it, when redeemed, and a party to receive the money and re-deliver the pledge, at the place agreed on.
It was objected, that this agreement was not one which the plaintiff could set up, because it was in contravention of the terms of the written agreement, and was not itself reduced to writing.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Currier v. CurrierSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1819
- Robinson v. BatchelderSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827