Franklin v. March
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit by the plaintiff as endorsee, upon an. instrument, in these words, “ Oct. 19, 1880. Good to Robert Cochran, or order, for thirty dollars, borrowed money. JOSEPH W. MARCH.” The case was submitted to the decision of the court, upon the following facts, reported by an auditor.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit by the plaintiff as endorsee, upon an. instrument, in these words, “ Oct. 19, 1880. Good to Robert Cochran, or order, for thirty dollars, borrowed money. JOSEPH W. MARCH.” The case was submitted to the decision of the court, upon the following facts, reported by an auditor. On the 19th October, 1830, the defendant sold and delivered to Cochran a quantity of hops, and on the same day received of Cochran the said sum of thirty dollars, in part payment for said hops, and thereupon gave Cochran the instrument in question. On the 15th February, 183!, Cochran endorsed it to the plaintiff,…
1Opinion of the Court
P' rkkii J.
The instrument declared upon in this case is not in the usual form of a promissory note, but no particular form of words seems to be necessary to give it that character. Bayley, on Bills, 3; Chitty, on Bills, 53, Selwyn’s N. P. 395, Casborne v. Dutlon; L’d Raym. 1396, Morris v. Lee; Strange, 629, S. C; ditto, 706, Chadwick v. Allen; 9 Johns. 217, Goshen Turnpike v. Hurtin; 2 Cowen, 536, Russell v. Whipple; 7 Cowen, 337, Mitchell v. Culver.
it has repeatedly been held that the words “value received,” though usually inserted, arc not essential. 3 Kent's Com. 50; Strange, 264,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- President of the Goshen & Minisink Turnpike Road v. HurtinNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Wiggin v. DamrellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
3Cited by4 opinions
- New York Casualty Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
- Barnet v. SmithSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1855
- Carlton v. BaileySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853
- Edson v. FullerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850