Berry v. Gillis
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The defendants named in the writ were two copartners, under the name of Gillis & Brown, and the declaration was upon a partnership note, dated November 8, 1836, payable to their own order, and indorsed. There was a count for money had and received.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The defendants named in the writ were two copartners, under the name of Gillis & Brown, and the declaration was upon a partnership note, dated November 8, 1836, payable to their own order, and indorsed. There was a count for money had and received. The writ was served upon Gillis only, who pleaded the general issue; and in a brief statement of his defence alleged that the note was, on the 26th day of May, 1841, the property of one French, who then and ever since has claimed to be the bona fide holder thereof; that on April 2, 1842, French filed his petition, and on the first day of…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
This action is founded upon a promissory note, signed by the copartnership of Brown & Gillis ; the defendant, Gillis, being one of the partners. Berry, the plaintiff, it is conceded is only a nominal party, holding the note for the benefit of French, who appears from the case to be the party in interest prosecuting the suit.
Two principal questions arise in the case:
1. Whether the covenant of French to indemnify Brown, executed May 26, 1841, can avail the defendant, Gillis, as a release, or covenant not to sue, which will bar the action.
2. Whether, by the bankruptcy of French, the title to,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Smith v. GordonDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1843
- Durell v. WendellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1836
- Phelps v. MahurinSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Roe v. Citizens National BankCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1976