McNeil v. Call
Superior Court of New Hampshire
In Equity. The bill stated the following ease : On the 24th day of October, 1842, William P. Hardy owned a tract of land situated in Concord, and described in the bill.
Read the full summary
In Equity. The bill stated the following ease : On the 24th day of October, 1842, William P. Hardy owned a tract of land situated in Concord, and described in the bill. At the same time, he owed the Exeter Bank the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars, according to his four several promissory notes of that date, one for the sum of §150, payable on the first day of January, 1843, one for §100, payable on the first day of July, 1843, one for §200, payable on the first day of July, 1844, and one for §200, payable on the first day of July, 1845. On the 24th day of October above mentioned, he…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, C. J.
The agency of Eaton is sufficiently
proved. The letter of Farrar, dated on the 18th day of July, 1842, shows that he was authorized to sell the property as he should see fit, upon his guarantee that the bank should be paid in full, and that all he should receive beyond the amount of the debt due the bank, should be retained by him for his own benefit. Fletcher says that Eaton acted as agent for the bank, and so says Fuller, until at last Eaton told him that he had bought the equity of redemption. In the case of Willard v. Henry, 2 N. H. Rep. 120, it was held that where a grantor remains in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Slee v. President & Directors of the Manhattan Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Batchelder v. RobinsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1832
- Deming v. ComingsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Willard ex rel. Olcott v. HenrySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1819