Davis v. Stevens
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, to recover the balance of a note to plaintiff ⅛ intestate, dated the 23d day of February, 1824, for $70-00, with interest after January, 1825, and signed by the defendant and one Samuel D. Stevens, on which note were the following endorsements : “Interest paid on the within, until 1827.” “February 1, 1833. Received thirty-six dollars and sixty cents, by Samuel D. Stevens.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, to recover the balance of a note to plaintiff ⅛ intestate, dated the 23d day of February, 1824, for $70-00, with interest after January, 1825, and signed by the defendant and one Samuel D. Stevens, on which note were the following endorsements : “Interest paid on the within, until 1827.” “February 1, 1833. Received thirty-six dollars and sixty cents, by Samuel D. Stevens.” The suit was brought against both of the signers of the note, hut service made only on the defendant. One point in the defence was, that the note had been paid by said Samuel D. Stevens, in the lifetime of the…
1Opinion of the CourtUpham, J.
It is a .general rule that when a note has once been paid by the parties to it, it ceases to be negotiable, and a suit cannot be founded upon it. It was so holden in the ease of Bryant vs. Ritterbush, 2 N. H. Rep. 212. There are exceptions, however, to this rale, where a note is taken up by an individual who is merely collaterally interested. Thus, where a note is taken up by an endorser who is not directly liable on the note, it may again be put in market. The promiser is not, in such case, prejudiced by such a transfer, and the note remains good as against him. 7 N. H. Rep. 202, Cochran vs.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Guild v. EagerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1822
- Bryant v. RitterbushSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1820
- Cochran v. WheelerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834