Douglas v. Elkins
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The writ contained two counts. The first alleged that the plaintiff, on the 14th of January, 1843, gave his promissory note to one Lemuel Dexter for $35, payable in September following, and that Dexter indorsed the note to the defendant, who became the owner; that the plaintiff, on the 30th of April, 1843, transferred and delivered to the defendant two promissory notes and an account, amounting in all to $19, in part payment of the first-mentioned note, and the…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The writ contained two counts. The first alleged that the plaintiff, on the 14th of January, 1843, gave his promissory note to one Lemuel Dexter for $35, payable in September following, and that Dexter indorsed the note to the defendant, who became the owner; that the plaintiff, on the 30th of April, 1843, transferred and delivered to the defendant two promissory notes and an account, amounting in all to $19, in part payment of the first-mentioned note, and the defendant promised and engaged to indorse the amount upon the first-mentioned note, but that the defendant did not indorse…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, C. J.
It is unnecessary, to settle the question, whether the facts stated in the case constitute such a fraudulent concealment as the law requires, in order to obviate *32the plea of the statute of limitations. It is true, there was in the defendant’s conduct both a suppressio veri and a suggestio falsi. He told a falsehood to the plaintiff, when he said that Elliot was gone away, while he was actually at home. But this was the only fact he concealed, excepting that he did not tell the plaintiff that Elliot had told him he had transferred the note. He also told a falsehood when he said to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Manning v. WheelerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843