Charles v. Davis, Ex'r.

62 N.H. 375
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1882·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Doe, C. J.

The judgment rendered against this plaintiff in the suit in which he could have pleaded usury, is conclusive evidence of the legality of the mortgage-note. Cooke v. Jones, Cowp. 727; Edmonson v. Popkin, 1 B. & P. 270; Flint v. Sheldon, 13 Mass. 443, 452, 453; Thatcher v. Gammon, 12 Mass. 267; Footman v. Stetson, 32 Me. 17; Tibbetts v. Shapleigh, 59 N. H. 319. “ If there be a bona fide legal process under which money is recovered, although not actually due, it cannot be recovered back, inasmuch as there must be some end to litigation.” Cadaval v. Collins, 4 A. & E. 858, 867.

Judgment for the defendant.

Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Charles v. Davis, Ex'r., 62 N.H. 375 (N.H. 1882).

62 N.H. 375 (Charles v. Davis, Ex'r.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related