Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

59 N.H. 470

Whitcher v. McConnell

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1879

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1879-12-05

Assumpsit, on a note dated March 20, 1867, payable to Mercy Whitcher, or order, and by her indorsed to the plaintiff;. Plea, the statute of limitations, and replication, a new promise. The payee had given the note to the defendant’s wife, excepting $36, which it was understood the defendant was to pay to her within six years of the suit.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1932

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relies on Clapp v. Hale

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-12-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*471 Allen, J.

¶1 The transaction by which the defendant gave a note of $44.04 to Mercy Whitcher, and indorsed $86 on the note in suit, was upon Sunday, and, being illegal, was not evidence from which a new promise could be inferred. Clapp v. Hale, 112 Mass. 368. The subsequent payments were voluntary payments to Mercy Whitcher, intended to be on her note of $44.64, and not on the note in suit. Nothing was paid on the plaintiff’s note. Tbe fact that tbe $44.64 note was void does not contradict tbe fact that tbe defendant paid and intended to pay that note, and is no evidence that he paid or intended to pay some other note, which at the time he did not see nor have in mind; nor was there any transaction between him and the holder in regard to the payment of the other note. The fact that the defendant paid a note which he was not obliged to pay, cannot be made to work a payment of another note, nor operate to renew it.

¶2 Judgment for the defendant.

Stanley, J., did not sit: tlie others concurred.
/59/nh/470 · .json · Public domain