3 N.H. 318 (N.H. 1825), Farwell v. Hilliard
|Citation:||3 N.H. 318|
|Party Name:||JOSEPH FARWELL v. BARNES HILLIARD.|
|Attorney:||Cushman, for the plaintiff. Sheafe, for the defendant.|
|Court:||Superior Court of New Hampshire|
In an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note, it is a good defence, that a judgment upon it has been rendered against a co-signer of the note, and that judgment satisfied.
ASSUMPSIT upon a promissory note, dated January 20, 1823, for $122 06, made by the defendant, and payable to the plaintiff in one year, with interest.
The cause was submitted to the decision of the court, upon the following case:
It was agreed, that the note was made by the defendant and three other persons; that this suit was commenced on the 15th April, 1824; that on the 23d March, 1824, another action was commenced against one of the other makers of the note; in which action judgment was rendered against that defendant for the amount of the note, and costs, at May term in the county of Coos, 1824; that execution issued upon the said judgment, and was delivered to a sheriff, who duly returned the execution satisfied in full.
By the court.
The whole amount of the debt having, in this case, been paid by another maker of the note, there is nothing, on which the plaintiff can support his action against this defendant. The case of Gilmere v. Carr, (2 Mass. 171,) is an authority directly in point for the defendant. 3 John. 229.--2 N.H. 169, Hodgdon v. Hodgdon.
Judgment for the defendant.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP