Haynes v. Thom
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated November 18th, 1845, signed by the defendant for $54,62, payable to the plaintiff, on demand, with interest. Plea, the general issue. The defence relied on at the trial was, that the note was obtained by the fraud of the plaintiff, and also that it was given without consideration.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated November 18th, 1845, signed by the defendant for $54,62, payable to the plaintiff, on demand, with interest. Plea, the general issue. The defence relied on at the trial was, that the note was obtained by the fraud of the plaintiff, and also that it was given without consideration. To show this, the defendant introduced, first, a copy of a judgment rendered at the August term of the common pleas of this county, 1845, in favor of the plaintiff against one John Clarke, for debt $43,80, and costs $7,83. It appeared that the last day of said term of the…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
From a perusal of this case there can be no doubt that the note in suit was given by the defendant, in consequence of his having receipted for a horse attached in the original action Haynes v. Clark ; and the question for us to decide, whether the evidence introduced was competent to be submitted to the jury to show the note to be without consideration.
If the note was without consideration, the plaintiff must fail in his action ; for want of consideration is a good defence to a promissory note, in a suit between the original parties. This is well settled. Copp v. Sawyer, 6 N. H. Rep. 386 ;…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Vallett v. ParkerNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Fink v. CoxNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Warder v. TuckerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Slingerland v. MorseNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Robbins v. LuceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.