Wiggin v. Damrell
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a promisory note for ⅜180 nítido April 6, 1821, and payable to the plaintiff, but-not to-Ms order, in.four months and grace.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promisory note for ⅜180 nítido April 6, 1821, and payable to the plaintiff, but-not to-Ms order, in.four months and grace. The teste of the writ was November 13, 1824. , The cause was tried here at February Term, 1826, upon the general issue with a.notice of set-oil' of several sums of money due from the plaintiff to the defendant by several promissory notes bearing date and becoming due previous to the note mentioned in the declaration, one of which for $360 was dated the 6th April, 1824. The making of the note mentioned in the declaration was admitted, as was that also of…
1Opinion of the Court
Richardson C. J.
One of the grounds on which the defendant rests his motion for a new trial is, that the deposition of Melcher’s clerk was improperly admitted in evidence oh the part of the plaintiff. The object of the deposition was 1o prove Wiggin’s admissions that he was indebted to Melcher at the time Wiggin failed. This suit is in fact a contest between Damrell and Melcher, and Wiggin is only nominally a party. Wiggin’s confession was one clearly against his interest and made before this suit was in the contemplation of any person, and if it is to he excluded, it must be by some technical…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hamblett v. HamblettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Franklin v. MarchSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Knowles v. DowSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851
- Edson v. FullerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850
- Thompson v. EmerySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853