Wright v. Bartlett
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon two promisory notes made at Lowell, Massachusetts, by one Case as principal, and the defendant as surety, for $2000 each, and payáble to the testator, or order, in one year, with interest.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon two promisory notes made at Lowell, Massachusetts, by one Case as principal, and the defendant as surety, for $2000 each, and payáble to the testator, or order, in one year, with interest. ITpon Case there was no service, and Bartlett, in a brief statement filed with the general issue, set up the statute of limitations ; a discharge of the surety by giving time to the principal; and a claim to deduct from the sum due three times the amount of usurious interest paid by Case. To prove a new promise by Bartlett, the plaintiff read an agreement by him, dated August 3, 1856,…
1Opinion of the CourtBellows, J.
It is objected that the promise of the defendant, being conditional, should have been declared on specially, and that the proof does not support a count on the original promise; but we think the law is settled the other way in-this State. Betton v. Cutts, 11 N. H. 170; Titus v. Ash, 21 N. H. 129, 144; Ang. on Lim. 249. Upon showing, then, that the condition was complied with, the debt against the defendant would be revived, and the making of the note by Case being shown, a joint promise was established; and it would avail nothing to show that, in another jurisdiction, Case might set up a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clippinger v. CrepsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Bryant v. EdsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
3Cited by2 opinions
- Arnold v. PotterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- McCans v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1944