Gilman v. Stevens
| Decision Date | 19 June 1885 |
| Citation | 63 N.H. 342,1 A. 202 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gilman Bros. v. Stevens |
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
Assumpsit upon an account. Facts found by the court. The defendant was defaulted, and the defence was made by subsequent attaching creditors.
September 6, 1883, the defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $ 822.37 upon account, for goods sold to him in Boston. On that day Burr, the plaintiffs' traveller called upon the defendant for money on account. The defendant was unable to pay, but offered his notes, amounting to $ 500, payable to the plaintiffs, $ 200 in fourteen, $ 150 in thirty, and $ 150 in forty-five days. Burr had no authority to accept notes, but received and forwarded them to the plaintiffs in Boston, who on September 12 procured them to be discounted. September 14 this suit was commenced. September 17 the defending creditors began their suits. After September 17 the plaintiffs paid to the bank the amount of the notes, took them up, and at the trial produced and offered them to the defendant.
There was no agreement or mutual understanding that the notes were or were not given and received in payment of the account pro tanto. There was evidence tending to show, and it is found, by the law of Massachusetts, that a promissory note constitutes payment of a preexisting debt for which it is given, in the absence of any stipulation on the subject. The plaintiffs did not intend to extend the time for the payment of the account, and did not do so, unless such extension results as the legal effect of receiving the notes and disposing of them in the manner stated.
C. C. Rogers and Barnard & Barnard, for the plaintiffs.
Bingham & Mitchell and W. D. Hardy, for the defendant.
Carpenter, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
The notes were made and payable in this state, and in determining their validity and effect they must be regarded as New Hampshire contracts. Dow v. Rowell, 12 N.H 49; Bank v. Colby, 12 N.H. 520; Dyer v. Hunt, 5 N.H. 401; Thayer v. Elliott, 16 N.H. 102; Little v Riley, 43 N.H. 109; Chase v. Dow, 47 N.H. 405. The contract of the maker with the payees and with any indorsee of the notes was to be performed in this state, and is governed by the law of New Hampshire. Sto. Conf. Laws, s. 332; Woodruff v. Hill, 116 Mass. 310. In this state a note is not payment of a preexisting debt unless specially agreed to be received as payment. Moore v. Fitz, 59 N.H. 572. The defendant, being unable to pay when called upon by the plaintiffs' agent, offered his notes, and delivered them to the agent. That the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Palmer
...of the state where the note was given which applies. Ward v. Howe, 38 N.H. 35. See, also, Pecker v. Kennison, 46 N.H. 488, and Gilman v. Stevens, 63 N.H. 342, (1 A. The doctrine of these cases is cited approvingly in Pars. Cont. 719. Ely v. James, 123 Mass. 36, although not an authority on ......
-
Louis-Dreyfus v. Paterson Steamships
...177 Mo. App. 300, 164 N. Y. S. 160); of the delivery of a note as payment (Tarbox v. Childs, 165 Mass. 408, 43 N. E. 124; Gilman v. Stevens, 63 N. H. 342, 1 A. 202, on the facts, though not on the reasoning); of payment in one currency or another (Anonymous, 1 Brown C. C. 376; Benners v. Cl......
-
Theis v. Wood
... ... J. L. 277; Kallenbach v ... Dickinson, 100 Ill. 427; 25 Cyc., 1368 and 1369; ... Howard v. Fletcher, 59 N.H. 151; Gillman v ... Stevens, 63 N.H. 342; Lacoste v. Benton, 3 L ... R. A. 220; Electric Co. v. Palmer, 53 N.W. 1137; ... Gates v. Tebbetts, 100 Mo.App. 590; Bank v ... ...
-
Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Palmer
...of the state where the note was given which applies. Ward v. Howe, 38 N. H. 35. See, also, Pecker v. Kennison, 46 N. H. 488, and Gilman v. Stevens, 63 N. H. 342, (1 Atl. Rep. 202.) The doctrine of these cases is cited approvingly in Pars. Cont. 719. Ely v. James, 123 Mass. 36, although not ......