Hall v. Clement
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon a note dated June 1,1858, for $710.70, signed by the defendants, James Clement & Co., and payable to the order of the plaintiffs, Martin L. Hall & Co., with a count for money had and received, $800, and a count for goods, &c., sold and delivered, of which a specification was furnished, amounting to $2063.32, on which payments are credited to the amount of $1,352.62, leaving a balance of $710.70. The case was referred to an auditor, who found that all the…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a note dated June 1,1858, for $710.70, signed by the defendants, James Clement & Co., and payable to the order of the plaintiffs, Martin L. Hall & Co., with a count for money had and received, $800, and a count for goods, &c., sold and delivered, of which a specification was furnished, amounting to $2063.32, on which payments are credited to the amount of $1,352.62, leaving a balance of $710.70. The case was referred to an auditor, who found that all the goods charged were sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants, at the times and prices charged, and that certain…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, C. J.
It is contended that by tbe settled law of Massachusetts, where tbe note in suit is dated and payable, a note is an absolute payment of a preexisting debt, and not, as here, a security, unless otherwise agreed by tbe parties; and tbe authorities cited, Thatcher v. Dinsmoor, 5 Mass. 299, 301; Whitcomb v. Williams, 4 Pick. 228; and other cases, sustain that view. No inference is drawn from that position, but the only inference available to the plaintiffs must be, that the debt, being paid and discharged by the note, the note cannot be contested for the want of consideration, any more than the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thacher v. DinsmoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- President of Springfield Bank v. MerrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Bancroft v. DumasSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Harrison & Robinson v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
3Cited by1 opinion
- Richards v. ColumbiaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1874