Olcott v. Alden
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit on a note, for $692, dated 25th April, 1832, made by the defendant, and payable to Isaac Dole, or order, on demand with interest, and by Dole endorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a note, for $692, dated 25th April, 1832, made by the defendant, and payable to Isaac Dole, or order, on demand with interest, and by Dole endorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant, in his plea, alleged in substance, that Dole, the endorser jof the note, in this suit, on the 25th April, 1332, at Lebanon, held three promissory notes, which had been made by the defendant, for three sums of money mentioned in the same notes, on which notes there was then justly due, to the said Dole, the sum of $8S3,-81 ; and that “ it was then and there corruptly agreed, by and between the said…
1Opinion of the Court
Richardson, 0. J,
delivered the opinion of the court.
It is a good answer to a plea like this, that the note was bona fide, transferred to the plaintiff, before it was discredited, for a good consideration, without notice of any usury in it. 3 N. H. Rep. 119, Forbes v. Marsh.
So it is a good answer to such a plea that the payee is dead or insane. 5 N. H. Rep. 556, Plumer v. Drake.
But in this case it is only alleged that the payee is out of the state, in parts unknown to the plaintiff. There is no allegation, on the part of the plaintiff, that he is the bona fide holder of the note, for a full…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Copeland v. JonesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1824
- Gibson v. StearnsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825
- Forbes v. MarshSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1824
- Plumer v. DrakeSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1832
3Cited by2 opinions
- Briggs v. SholesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Tappan v. SabinSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1844