McFetrich v. Woodrow

38 A. 18, 67 N.H. 174
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1891·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Allen, J.

The note was not a valid contract until it was negotiated and. delivered to the plaintiff for value. Jameson was not •entitled to notice of non-payment. He was liable to the plaintiff, *175 not as endorser, but as maker. Martin v. Boyd, 11 N. H. 385; Benton v. Willard, 17 N. H. 593; Currier v. Fellows, 27 N. H. 366; Phillips v. Johnson, 64 N. H. 393, 400. On the facts found, it is immaterial that, for the purpose of giving the plaintiff title to the note, Williams endorsed it above the name of Jameson.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

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

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

McFetrich v. Woodrow, 38 A. 18, 67 N.H. 174 (N.H. 1891).

38 A. 18 (McFetrich v. Woodrow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bank of Conway v. Stary
200 N.W. 505 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1924)