Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

60 N.H. 114

Merrill v. Carr

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1880

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1880-06-05

Assumpsit. The defendant filed in set-off a note for $50, signed by the plaintiff. Facts found by a referee. The defendant, detecting the plaintiff, one evening, stealing corn and potatoes from the defendant’s field, charged him with the previous commission of other similar larcenies, of which the plaintiff claimed to be innocent, but of which he was in fact guilty.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1894

2 state decisions

Relies on Hinds v. Chamberlin · Forshner v. Whitcomb

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-06-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bingham, J.

¶1 When the plaintiff was discovered carrying away the defendant’s property, a search of his house for other stolen property was contemplated. A part of the consideration of the note was the defendant’s agreement not to search the plaintiff’s. *115 house that night. Issuing a warrant to search a house for stolen property is a proceeding to recover the property and bring the thief to punishment. G. L., c. 255, ss. 2, 3, 4; Morrison Just. & Sher. 260. A contract to suppress a criminal prosecution, even for a limited time, is illegal. The consideration of the note in question was partly the defendant’s agreement not to commence criminal proceedings against the plaintiff before the next day. A note is void if part of the consi de ration is illegal. Hinds v. Chamberlin, 6 N. H. 225, 229, 231; Forshner v. Whitcomb, 44 N. H. 14.

¶2 Set-off disallowed.

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/60/nh/114 · .json · Public domain