Kelley v. Sanborn

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Kelley v. Sanborn

9 N.H. 46

CourtSuperior Court of New Hampshire

DecidedDecember 15, 1837

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 N.H. 46 (Kelley v. Sanborn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelley v. Sanborn, 9 N.H. 46 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, J.

The principles which must govern this case have already been settled in this state.

There is nothing in what was said by the defendant, from which the jury can infer a promise. 4 N. H. R. 315, Atwood vs. Coburn; 6 N. H. R, 132. There was no admission of an existing debt, or anything indicative of an intention to pay the note. The defendant admitted that Jethro Sanborn had paid the money endorsed, but that .cannot be construed into an admission that he himself owed anything. The most that can be said is, that there was no formal denial by the defendant of his liability; but he at the same time indicated that he supposed there was an obstacle to the maintenance of a suit, at that time at least.

[48]*48Taken together, then, there,is nothing on which to found an inference of a promise. Nor can the payment by Jethro Sanborn avail to take the case out of the statute, as to the defendant. 6 N. H. R. 121, Exeter Bank vs. Sullivan.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Parker, J.

The principles which must govern this case have already been settled in this state.

There is nothing in what was said by the defendant, from which the jury can infer a promise. 4 N. H. R. 315, Atwood vs. Coburn; 6 N. H. R, 132. There was no admission of an existing debt, or anything indicative of an intention to pay the note. The defendant admitted that Jethro Sanborn had paid the money endorsed, but that .cannot be construed into an admission that he himself owed anything. The most that can be said is, that there was no formal denial by the defendant of his liability; but he at the same time indicated that he supposed there was an obstacle to the maintenance of a suit, at that time at least.

[48]*48Taken together, then, there,is nothing on which to found an inference of a promise. Nor can the payment by Jethro Sanborn avail to take the case out of the statute, as to the defendant. 6 N. H. R. 121, Exeter Bank vs. Sullivan.

Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.H. 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-sanborn-nhsuperct-1837.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack