Ventris v. Shaw
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note dated on the 25th day of December, 1833. Plea, the general issue, and a notice of the statute of limitations. It was in evidence that on the L 3th day of May, A. D. 1842, Mr. Marston, who had the note in his office for collection, presented it to the defendant and requested him to pay it.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note dated on the 25th day of December, 1833. Plea, the general issue, and a notice of the statute of limitations. It was in evidence that on the L 3th day of May, A. D. 1842, Mr. Marston, who had the note in his office for collection, presented it to the defendant and requested him to pay it. The defendant said that he owed money to different persons, and did not know that he could pay any more at present than those debts ; that he should like to see the plaintiff; if he could see him he thought he could make some arrangement by way of settlement; that he guessed…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, J.
In the case of Manning vs. Wheeler, 13 N. H. Rep. 486, and in three cases prior to it, Russell vs. Copp, 5 N. H. Rep. 154, Exeter Bank vs. Sullivan, 6 N. H. Rep. 124. and Blair vs. Drew, 6 N. H. Rep. 247, we have recognized the doctrine of Bell vs. Morrison, 1 Peters 362, as stated by Mr. Justice Story. The language of that case is precise, and affords an easy and sensible rule for the decision of similar cases. “ If there be no express promise, but a promise is to be raised by implication of law from the acknowledgement of the party, such acknowledgement ought to contain an unqualified and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bell v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Exeter Bank v. SullivanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Manning v. WheelerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Doty v. HawkinsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Russell v. CoppSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1830