Hunt v. Aldrich
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, founded upon a promissory note of the following tenor and date:— “ Keene, Dee. 25,1851. Ninety days from date, we promise to pay the Cheshire Bank, or order, at their banking house, one hundred and fifty dollars, value received. Amasa Thompson, Amasa Aldrich.” In the first count in the writ, the plaintiff declared on the note as payable to himself, by the name of the Cheshire Bank. In the second count, he declared on it as payable to bearer.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, founded upon a promissory note of the following tenor and date:— “ Keene, Dee. 25,1851. Ninety days from date, we promise to pay the Cheshire Bank, or order, at their banking house, one hundred and fifty dollars, value received. Amasa Thompson, Amasa Aldrich.” In the first count in the writ, the plaintiff declared on the note as payable to himself, by the name of the Cheshire Bank. In the second count, he declared on it as payable to bearer. Thompson was defaulted. A verdict was taken by consent for the amount of the note, against Aldrich, subject to the opinion of the superior…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
The defence to this action is made by Aldrich, the surety on the note, Thompson having been defaulted.
The note was made to raise money. It was a negotiable, accommodation note. The contract was to pay the Cheshire Bank, or theiiv order, one hundred and 'fifty dollars, at their banking house, in ninety days. And had the defendant fulfilled his contract and gone to the bank at the expiration of the ninety days with the money, he would undoubtedly have *35found the note there, and could have taken it up. But if not there, he could have left the money and he would have been discharged from any…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Elliot v. AbbotSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842