Peoples Trust Co. v. Merrill
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a promissory note for two hundred and fifty dollars.. signed “Merrill & Co.” and executed by Arthur K. Merrill. The note was payable to the order of S. B. Withington, and was endorsed, to the plaintiff for value, before maturity. It was originally given for the purchase price of a horse bought by the defendants of With-ington.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note for two hundred and fifty dollars.. signed “Merrill & Co.” and executed by Arthur K. Merrill. The note was payable to the order of S. B. Withington, and was endorsed, to the plaintiff for value, before maturity. It was originally given for the purchase price of a horse bought by the defendants of With-ington. To the finding that “Merrill & Co.” is a copartnership consisting-of Arthur K. Merrill and his wife, Anna G. Merrill, and that as such they purchased the horse which they still have, the defendant, Anna G. Merrill, duly excepted, claiming that a…
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.
The transferred case does not show in what way the finding excepted to was material to the conclusions which were-reached in the superior court. The briefs of counsel indicate that there was a verdict for the plaintiff against the wife, and that this was based upon the finding that there was a partnership between the - husband and wife, whereby the husband gained authority to bind1 her by a partnership note. If this is the situation, the verdict must be set aside.
The common law refused to recognize contracts between husband and wife. Kimball v. Kimball, 75 N. H. 291. And the statute enlarging…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kimball v. KimballSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909