Maxwell v. Warner
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for goods sold, money had and received, and money paid. Plea, the general issue. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, having in his hands property belonging to one Bernice Richardson, in consideration thereof, and with the assent of Richardson, promised the plaintiff to pay him the balance due on a note which he then held against Richardson.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for goods sold, money had and received, and money paid. Plea, the general issue. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, having in his hands property belonging to one Bernice Richardson, in consideration thereof, and with the assent of Richardson, promised the plaintiff to pay him the balance due on a note which he then held against Richardson. McCulloch, a witness for the plaintiff, deposed, that in the month of September, 1836, he was in the defendant’s counting room, and the plaintiff came in, and a conversation took place between them about some money, and the defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Gilchrist, J.*
It is not necessary, in this case, in order to entitle the plaintiff to recover, that he should be able to prove the precise words used by the defendant in the conversation to which the witness has testified. The question is not as to the meaning of particular words and phrases, so that they must be particularly stated, in order that their meaning may be understood, but whether the defendant did or did not promise to pay the plaintiff' the debt which Richardson then owed him. Nothing is more natural, or consistent with experience, than that a person should remember precisely…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Neilson v. M'VeyNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Eaton v. RiceSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1836
3Cited by3 opinions
- Collins v. HughesNebraska Supreme Court · 1938
- Hoitt v. MoultonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850
- Young v. DearbornSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851