Stowell v. Fowler

59 N.H. 585
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1880·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*586 Smith, J.

To entitle the plaintiff to recover, he must prove a direct and unqualified admission of a previous subsisting debt which the defendant was liable and willing to pay. Ventris v. Shaw, 14 N. H. 422. If the evidence shows an undertaking to pay, it was to pay as soon as the defendant should be in funds. His promise was not contingent upon the death of his mother, but that event was one occasion when he expected to be in funds. There was no evidence that the defendant subsequently had money from which he might have settled this claim. The promise was, to “ settle when he should get the money.” The motion for a nonsuit should have been granted. Exeter Bank v. Sullivan, 6 N. H. 124, 132, 135, 136; Butterfield v. Jacobs, 15 N. H. 140; Weare v. Chase, 58 N. H. 225; Dodge v. Leavitt, ante 245; 3 Par. Cont. 70.

Exceptions sustained.

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

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

Stowell v. Fowler, 59 N.H. 585 (N.H. 1880).

59 N.H. 585 (Stowell v. Fowler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barker v. Heath
67 A. 222 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1907)