Lang v. Gage

• Decision Date: 13 March 1891
• Citation: 66 N.H. 624,32 A. 155
• Parties: LANG v. GAGE.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

32 A. 155

66 N.H. 624

LANG

v. GAGE.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack.

March 13, 1891.

Assumpsit, by Abby W. Lang against Isaac K. Gage, on a promissory note signed by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff on demand. Plea, general issue and a brief statement of the statute of limitations. Upon trial of the case after the decision reported in 65 N. H. 173, 18 Atl. 795, the plaintiff testified to statements of the defendant to her, acknowledging the debt and assuring her of its payment. The following special questions were submitted to the jury, who, with their answers, returned a general verdict for the plaintiff: "Has the defendant in words expressly promised to pay the plaintiff within six years before September 14, 1888, the date of the writ, or acknowledged his liability? Ans. Yes. Was the payment and indorsement of January 9, 1883, made by the defendant as an individual, or as an officer of the bank? Ans. Individual. Was said payment made from the defendant's money, or from money of the bank? Ans. Defendant's. Were the defendant's conduct and representations, in connection with, or preceding the making of, the payments indorsed in his handwriting upon the note, such as to cause the plaintiff to believe that he made such payments voluntarily of his own money, and in recognition of his liability on the note, and was the plaintiff misled thereby and caused to change her position? Ans. Yes." The defendant's motions for a nonsuit, and to set aside the verdict because not supported by any evidence, were denied, and the defendant excepted. Exceptions overruled.

Leach & Stevens and F. N. Parsons, for plaintiff.

John M. Mitchell, for defendant.

BLODGETT, J. 1. The motions (1) for a nonsuit and (2) to set aside the verdict because it was not supported by any evidence were properly denied. Aside from competent evidence from other sources, tending more or less strongly to establish the defendant's liability upon the note in suit, there was direct testimony that he promised the plaintiff she should have all there was due on the note, that he would pay her everything the principal owed her, and that the indorsements made by him were from his own money which he had put into the savings bank. This testimony afforded competent evidence of the defendant's unequivocal acknowledgment of the debt, as well as of his willingness and unqualified promise to pay it, and was amply sufficient to justify the submission of the case to the jury.

2. The...