Weare v. Gove
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, a copy of which is set forth in the case Weare v. School District No. 16, in said town, ante. Tbe parties agreed that the facts in this case were the same as reported in the case against said school district. It was agreed that judgment be rendered in this suit according to the opinion of the court upon the agreed statement of facts, reserving to either party the right to trial by jury.
1Opinion of the CourtBellows, J.
As we have seen, in Weare v. School District, before reported, the agents had no authority to bind the district by a promissory note, and, striking out those parts which they had no authority to put there, and which represent them as contracting for the district, if such there be, there are clearly apt words to bind them individually, and to bring this case within the principle of our decisions. Underhill v. Gibson, 2 N. H. 352; Savage v. Rix, 9 N. H. 268; Woodes v. Dennett, 9 N. H. 58; Pettengill v. McGregor, 12 N. H. 191; Moore v. Wilson, 26 N. H. 336; Bank v. Flanders, 4 N. H. 239.
But,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Royce v. AllenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Clark v. FosterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
- Jenney v. RodmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820