Houghton v. Page
Superior Court of New Hampshire
THIS was aii action of assumpsit, upon a promissory note made by Lewis Page and Seth Lyman, and payable to T. M. or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
THIS was aii action of assumpsit, upon a promissory note made by Lewis Page and Seth Lyman, and payable to T. M. or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff. The cause was tried at the last term in this county, upon the general issue, when the defence set up was that the note was given to secure the payment of illegal interest reserved upon-a loan of money ; and the only question was, whether Seth Lyman was a competent witness to prove the consideration of the note to have been usury, this question having been saved, and the cause continued to this term.
1Opinion of the Court
The court now said, that the rule that a party who has put his name to a negotiable instrument cannot be a witness to shew it was originally void, even in a suit between the *61original parties to the instrument, was too well settled to be questioned. 3 Mass. Rep. 27, Warren vs. Merry. — 4 do. 156, Churchill vs. Suter. — 10 do. 502, Manning vs. Wheatland. — 2 Johnson 165, Colman vs. Wise.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Warren v. MerryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by4 opinions
- Marston v. BrackettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1838
- Ross v. KnightSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- Odiorne v. HowardSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Haines v. DennettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840