Rockingham Bank v. Claggett
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated December 5, 1843, signed by the defendant and J. Norton and Thomas Norton, by which the signers jointly and severally promised to pay the Rockingham Bank $ 100, in thirty days, and grace. The writ was dated November 30, 1849. The plaintiff in interest was alleged to be James Smith, who was permitted by the common pleas to prosecute the suit, at the September term, 1853, the term at which the trial was had.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated December 5, 1843, signed by the defendant and J. Norton and Thomas Norton, by which the signers jointly and severally promised to pay the Rockingham Bank $ 100, in thirty days, and grace. The writ was dated November 30, 1849. The plaintiff in interest was alleged to be James Smith, who was permitted by the common pleas to prosecute the suit, at the September term, 1853, the term at which the trial was had. The defence under the general issue was payment, and that the suit was brought in the name of the plaintiffs without their authority. Upon the trial…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
There was no motion for a nonsuit made at the trial, nor does the case find any motion to set aside the verdict as against evidence. There was no transfer of these questions, and they are not therefore before us.
We see no reason to revise the decision in regard to the interest of Pickering. He distinctly disavowed all interest *297in the suit, and the papers used upon the trial do not show any.
The principal question of the case relates to the payment of the note, and the maintaining of the action in the name of the bank. And this question, we think, was settled by the jury, under the instructions…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Blake v. SewellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1799
- Elliot v. AbbotSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842