National Bank v. Sayer

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

National Bank v. Sayer

64 A. 189, 73 N.H. 595, 1906 N.H. LEXIS 39

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedJune 5, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 A. 189 (National Bank v. Sayer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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

National Bank v. Sayer, 64 A. 189, 73 N.H. 595, 1906 N.H. LEXIS 39 (N.H. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Walker, J.

It appears that the defendant, at the express-request of Plant, gave the bank the check in suit in order to discharge the claim which the bank was attempting to enforce against Plant. Notwithstanding Plant’s claim that he had paid the note, the bank insisted upon its validity. It did not concede that it was worthless, and threatened to take the horse covered by the mortgage unless the amount of the note was forthwith paid to it. In order to avoid this result and escape litigation with the bank, Plant induced the defendant to pay the note for him to the plaintiff. ' It is found that no fraud or deceit was practiced by the-plaintiff upon the defendant. What the arrangement was between the defendant and Plant does not clearly appear, and in this action it is not material. The consideration for the check was legal and! binding. Flannagan v. Kilcome, 58 N. H. 443; Hitchcock v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399, 402.

The fact that the note was not formally indorsed to the bank by Nutter is not important; and the discovery of that fact by the defendant after he had given the check to the bank did not authorize him to rescind his executed contract with the bank. It is not-apparent what difference it made to him whether it bore the indorsement of the payee or not. When he received the note and mortgage the latter bore the bank’s memorandum' of the transaction that both had been discharged; and the verdict is consonant with the theory that it was not the intention of the parties to vest any title to the note and mortgage in the defendant. Hence as-he had no legal interest in the question of the previous informal transfer of the note, he is not entitled to avoid his obligation, entered into upon a sufficient consideration, by a rescission of it. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider what his rights might have been if the bank had attempted to transfer the note and mortgage to him.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

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

Walker, J.

It appears that the defendant, at the express-request of Plant, gave the bank the check in suit in order to discharge the claim which the bank was attempting to enforce against Plant. Notwithstanding Plant’s claim that he had paid the note, the bank insisted upon its validity. It did not concede that it was worthless, and threatened to take the horse covered by the mortgage unless the amount of the note was forthwith paid to it. In order to avoid this result and escape litigation with the bank, Plant induced the defendant to pay the note for him to the plaintiff. ' It is found that no fraud or deceit was practiced by the-plaintiff upon the defendant. What the arrangement was between the defendant and Plant does not clearly appear, and in this action it is not material. The consideration for the check was legal and! binding. Flannagan v. Kilcome, 58 N. H. 443; Hitchcock v. Libby, 70 N. H. 399, 402.

The fact that the note was not formally indorsed to the bank by Nutter is not important; and the discovery of that fact by the defendant after he had given the check to the bank did not authorize him to rescind his executed contract with the bank. It is not-apparent what difference it made to him whether it bore the indorsement of the payee or not. When he received the note and mortgage the latter bore the bank’s memorandum' of the transaction that both had been discharged; and the verdict is consonant with the theory that it was not the intention of the parties to vest any title to the note and mortgage in the defendant. Hence as-he had no legal interest in the question of the previous informal transfer of the note, he is not entitled to avoid his obligation, entered into upon a sufficient consideration, by a rescission of it. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider what his rights might have been if the bank had attempted to transfer the note and mortgage to him.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A. 189, 73 N.H. 595, 1906 N.H. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-bank-v-sayer-nh-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack