First Cong. Soc. in Lyme v. Miller
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon the defendant’s promissory note, dated on the 1st day of January, 1831, and payable to the plaintiff on demand, with interest annually. The writ was dated on the 31st day of October, 1842. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs replied, alleging a new promise within six years next before the suit was brought, upon which replication issue was joined.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon the defendant’s promissory note, dated on the 1st day of January, 1831, and payable to the plaintiff on demand, with interest annually. The writ was dated on the 31st day of October, 1842. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs replied, alleging a new promise within six years next before the suit was brought, upon which replication issue was joined. To maintain the issue, the plaintiffs gave in evidence the note declared upon, on which were several indorsements, the last of which was dated on the 27th day of July, 1836, and it purported to be an…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, J.
The recent case of Butterfield vs. Jacobs, 15 N. H. Rep. 140, settles the question before us. What the defendant said upon being called on for payment, does not make a condition. In that case the defendant said that if the sheriff would not arrest him, he would go to work at his trade, and would pay the debt as fast as he could. It was held that these words did not constitute a conditional promise to pay, but that the promise was absolute.
In the present case the defendant said he had not the money, but would pay as soon as he could. This was not a conditional promise, which is a promise to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Crosby v. WyattSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Butterfield v. JacobsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sanford v. LuceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
- Henry R. Guild, Jr. v. Meredith Village Savings BankCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1980