Clough v. McDaniel
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated April 15, 1865, executed by one Hayes as principal, and the testator as surety, and payable to the plaintiff. The writ was dated August 28, 1874. Plea, the general issue, with a brief statement that the plaintiff’s action did not accrue within six years before the commencement of the same.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated April 15, 1865, executed by one Hayes as principal, and the testator as surety, and payable to the plaintiff. The writ was dated August 28, 1874. Plea, the general issue, with a brief statement that the plaintiff’s action did not accrue within six years before the commencement of the same. The will was proved, and the grant of administration taken on the first Tuesday of May, 1871. It was admitted that there were assets of tlie testator in his executor’s hands sufficient to pay the note. The plaintiff proved the signatures to the note, and read it in…
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
The indorsements were not competent evidence. They were not shown to be in the defendant’s handwriting, or in the handwriting of any one that made them evidence against him. Nor were they verified by payments. Marshall v. Daniels, 18 N. H. 364.
No action can bo sustained against an executor unless the demand was exhibited to him within two years from the original grant of administration, according to Gen. St., c. 179, ss. 2, 3.
The plaintiff must prove this fact affirmatively, in order to recover under the general issue. It is a part of his case. Mathes v. Jackson, 6 N. H. 105; Kittredge v.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. WellsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899
- Cummings v. FarnhamSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908