Stowell v. Fowler
This text of 59 N.H. 585 (Stowell v. Fowler) 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
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.
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. 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stowell-v-fowler-nh-1880.