Bank of Woodstock v. Kent
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit by the plaintiffs, as indorsees of a promissory note dated December 17th, 1840, made by the defendant and payaWe to the order of A. Haven, agent of the Tyson Furnace Company, in one year from date. The case was submitted upon a statement of facts.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit by the plaintiffs, as indorsees of a promissory note dated December 17th, 1840, made by the defendant and payaWe to the order of A. Haven, agent of the Tyson Furnace Company, in one year from date. The case was submitted upon a statement of facts. On the 13th day of October, A. D. 1841, the Bank of Woodstock, holding a bond against the Tyson Furnace Co., conditioned to waive protest on all notes discounted by the said bank for the company, and to make good to the bank all notes if not collectable from the makers, discounted for the company the promissory note of the defendant, of…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
The plaintiffs discounted the note, and seem to have taken it in the usual course of their business, before it was due. Their rights are not less because they have collateral security. 10 N. H. Rep. 359, 367, Woodman vs. Eastman. It was not necessary that they should have parted with their money on the credit of this alone, to entitle them to the ordinary rights of indorsees, who have purchased before, the note became due. It is sufficient that they became the owners of it.
Were it otherwise, the plaintiffs’ rights would depend upon the sufficiency of the security. If the security vras worth…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Woodman v. EastmanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Williams v. LittleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
- Jenness v. BeanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839