Roberts v. Rowe

70 A. 1074, 75 N.H. 36, 1908 N.H. LEXIS 30
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedOctober 6, 1908
StatusPublished

This text of 70 A. 1074 (Roberts v. Rowe) 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
Roberts v. Rowe, 70 A. 1074, 75 N.H. 36, 1908 N.H. LEXIS 30 (N.H. 1908).

Opinion

Youno, J.

Notwithstanding it would be a defence, if the bank sued Roberts on the notes, to show that the bank neglected to notify him of the maker’s default, the defendants cannot be heard to complain because he refuses to make it. The only question raised by the exception is whether it is a defence to this action to show that the plaintiff, after learning that the notes were not the •defendants’, attempted to enforce them against the corporation. The case does not stand any differently than it would if the plaintiff had known the facts when he took the notes, but had not taken them in settlement of his claim against the defendants; for the corporation promised to pay for the coal before the notes were given, and notwithstanding this promise was made to the defendants, the plaintiff can enforce it in equity against the corporation. Sanders v. Insurance Co., 72 N. H. 485. It is therefore no answer to this suit to show that Roberts is the real plaintiff in the bill in -equity.

Exception overruled.

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

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

Related

Sanders v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Insurance
57 A. 655 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A. 1074, 75 N.H. 36, 1908 N.H. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-rowe-nh-1908.