Rangely v. Webster
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note of the defendants, dated July 20, 1836, for $ 15-000, and payable to the plaintiff or order in one year from the first day of August then next, at one of the banks in Portland. The case comes here upon an agreed statement of facts.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note of the defendants, dated July 20, 1836, for $ 15-000, and payable to the plaintiff or order in one year from the first day of August then next, at one of the banks in Portland. The case comes here upon an agreed statement of facts. The writ is dated August 26, 1837. An action was commenced in the county of Cumberland, in the state of Maine, by the plaintiff against the defendants, founded upon the note here declared on, and was entered at the October term of the court of common pleas, A. D. 1837, holden at Portland, in said county, and was therein continued…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
The objection to the reception of the plea and brief statement cannot prevail.
The plea and statement constitute substantially a plea, puis darrein continuance, in bar of the further maintenance of the action.
*302A term of the court had intervened between the time when the matter of the plea arose, and the time of plea pleaded. That intervention is made the ground of objection to the reception of the plea.
Brief statements, filed in pursuance of the statute, in connection with the general issue, are for all purposes, under similar regulations, as special pleas.
It is so provided by tire 6th rule of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bissell v. BriggsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Holbrook v. MurrayNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Thurber v. BlackbourneSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1818
- Kimball v. WilsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1824
- Tuffs v. GibbonsNew York Supreme Court · 1839
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. RichmondSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853