Benton v. Barnet

Decided June 5, 1879

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1879-06-05

Wbit ob Entry, to foreclose a mortgage. Facts found by tbe ■court. The mortgage is tbe same as that in tbe suit Noyes v. Barnet, 57 N. H. 605, and is beld by Noyes. Benton bolds three and Noyes bolds one of the notes secured by tbe mortgage. Noyes’s suit was entered at tbe April term, 1874, and Benton’s at tbe April term, 1877.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1912

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-06-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, J.

¶1 Tbe suit last brought should be consolidated with ¡the first suit, costs being regulated at tbe trial term. Benton need not wait until- Noyes has established his right to recover. Tbe holders of tbe notes may have separate judgments, and at tbe same or different terms. If Noyes recovers a separate judgment, tbe rights of tbe parties can be as well adjusted as if there were but ■one judgment for Benton and Noyes.

¶2 Exceptions overruled.

Stanley, J., did not sit: tbe others concurred.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: WRIT OF ENTRY, to foreclose a mortgage. Facts found by the court. The mortgage is the same as that in the suit Noyes v. Barnet, 57 N.H. 605 , and is held by Noyes. Benton holds three and Noyes holds one of the notes secured by the mortgage. Noyes's suit was entered at the April term, 1874, and Benton's at the April term, 1877. At the November term, 1876, Noyes obtained leave to amend by joining Benton as co-plaintiff, and filed the amendment at the November term, 1877, Benton objecting. At the November term, 1878, the defendant moved for a nonsuit in Benton's suit because Noyes was not joined as co-plaintiff, which motion was granted unless the plaintiff would amend; and the plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff thereupon amended by joining Noyes as co-plaintiff, whereupon the defendant renewed his motion for a nonsuit because of the pendency of the prior action. The motion was denied, and the defendant excepted. The evidence tended to show defence to the note held by Noyes. The court found for the plaintiff, Benton, and ordered conditional judgment as of mortgage for the amount of the notes held by him, to which the defendant excepted, and filed this bill of exceptions, which was allowed.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of New Hampshire