Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 N.H. 226

March v. Putney

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 14, 1875

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1875-12-14

From Merrimack Circuit Court. Assumpsit on guaranty. The guaranty was the same mentioned in March v. Putney, ante, 84. The report of the referee showed that the guaranty was executed by the defendant on the evening of September 8, and mailed to the plaintiff the next morning ; and the goods which were the subject-matter of the suit were delivered and charged September 8.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1923

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-12-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

* Cushing, C. J.

¶1 It seems clear to me that by this contract the deintended and expected to guarantee the payment for goods to be sold after its execution, and not otherwise. The report of the referee does not find the fact that the goods were delivered after the execution of the guaranty. It is not the province of this court to find the facts, and if it were so, I should infer from the report that these goods were delivered before the execution of the guaranty.

¶2 Unless, therefore, the plaintiff can have the report recommitted, for the purpose of determining this, and other facts desired in the court below, there must be

¶3 Judgment for the defendant.

Ladd, J., and Stanley, J., C. C., concurred.
*

¶4 Smith, J., did not sit.

/56/nh/226 · .json · Public domain