Pierce v. Pierce
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, to recover the balance due on two notes signed by the defendant, payable to the order of Franklin Pierce, deceased, and. endorsed by his executor to the plaintiff. Plea, general issue. There was an indoi-sement of a partial payment on each of the notes, which the evidence tended to show was made in pursuance of the written common-law award of a referee mutually chosen by the defendant and the executor.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, to recover the balance due on two notes signed by the defendant, payable to the order of Franklin Pierce, deceased, and. endorsed by his executor to the plaintiff. Plea, general issue. There was an indoi-sement of a partial payment on each of the notes, which the evidence tended to show was made in pursuance of the written common-law award of a referee mutually chosen by the defendant and the executor. The defendant claimed and offered to testify that the referee erroneously and illegally allowed claims against him to the estate which were barred by the statute of , limitations,…
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, J.
Truesdale v. Straw, 58 N. H. 207, is a decisive authority against the defendant; but, without regard to that case, we think there is no ground for holding that a common-law award can be impeached in any proceeding, simply for the allowance of claims barred by the statute of limitations..Exceptions overruled.
Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Truesdale v. StrawSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1877