Norris v. Ward
This text of 59 N.H. 487 (Norris v. Ward) 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.
Opinion
It does not appear that the defendant, when he promised to pay the note after its dishonor, knew that no demand had been made upon the maker at the maturity of the note. In order to render his promise effectual, he must have known that no demand had been made. Ladd v. Kenney, 2 N. H. 340; Otis v. Hussey, 3 N. H. 346; Whitney v. Abbott, 5 N. H. 379; Farrington v. Brown, 7 N. H. 271; Woodman v. Eastman, 10 N. H. 366; Bank v. Brown, 12 N. H. 325; Caldwell v. Porter, 17 N. H. 27; Rogers v. Hackett, 21 N. H. 100; Edwards v. Tandy, 36 N. H. 544; Hopkins v. Liswell, 12 Mass. 52; 3 Kent Com. 113.
Judgment on the report for the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
59 N.H. 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-ward-nh-1879.