Chase v. Deming
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit against Abial Deming and Daniel Holt, as partners in business, under the firm of D. Holt & Co., for goods sold and delivered, &e. At the first term, the defendants pleaded in abatement that the several promises in said writ declared on, if any such were made, were made by Daniel F. Tillotson, of, &c., jointly with said A. Deming and D. Holt, and not by said Deming and Holt alone, which said Tillotson is still alive, to wit, &c.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against Abial Deming and Daniel Holt, as partners in business, under the firm of D. Holt & Co., for goods sold and delivered, &e. At the first term, the defendants pleaded in abatement that the several promises in said writ declared on, if any such were made, were made by Daniel F. Tillotson, of, &c., jointly with said A. Deming and D. Holt, and not by said Deming and Holt alone, which said Tillotson is still alive, to wit, &c. The plaintiff replied that the several promises in said declaration mentioned, were, and each of them was, made by said Holt and Deming alone, as the…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, C. J.
The declaration was general for goods sold and delivered, &c. The two defendants sued (Holt and Deming) pleaded that the promises were made by them jointly with Tillotson, who is still living. On this plea in abatement issue was joined, and the case tried. ■
The defendants claimed, and were allowed the right to open and close, and we think rightfully. The burden of proof upon the only matter in controversy upon the pleadings was upon them. Jewett v. Davis, 6 N. H. 520; Chesley v. Chesley, 37 N. H. 229.
It appeared that the contracts, out of which the defendants’ indebtedness grew, were made by…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Welland Canal Co. v. HathawayNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Webb v. WebbSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Mechanics' & Farmers' Bank v. DakinNew York Supreme Court · 1840