Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 N.H. 429

Dunn v. Meserve

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided August 5, 1878

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1878-08-05

Assumpsit on a note, dated Oct. 81, 1872, and payable to the plaintiff or order, on demand. Facts agreed. Jan. 6, 1878, the plaintiff delivered the note to the City Bank, as collateral security for a note given by the plaintiff to the bank for money then loaned to him by the bank.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1913

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-08-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Doe, C. J.

¶1 The note not being endorsed, the suit was brought in the name of the payee. The plaintiff and the bank did not avail themselves of the negotiability of the note ; and the bank acquired no greater right than it would have had if the note had not been negotiable. Whatever may be the construction of the written stipulation, it had not more legal effect against the defendant than an assignment of a non-negotiable chose in action. And the bank shows no ground for an exception to the general rule, that a plaintiff in interest has no better case than the plaintiff of record. The defendant, having paid the payee in good faith, and without notice of the pledgee’s claim, cannot be compelled to pay the note again.

¶2 Judgment for the defendant,

Stanley, Bingham, and Allen, JJ., did not sit.
/58/nh/429 · .json · Public domain