Norris v. Ward

59 N.H. 487
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1879·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Smith, J.

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.

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

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

Norris v. Ward, 59 N.H. 487 (N.H. 1879).

59 N.H. 487 (Norris v. Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rochester Savings Bank v. Chick
13 A. 372 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1887)