58 N.H. 225 | N.H. | 1877
If the evidence contained a direct, unqualified admission of a previous subsisting debt, which the defendant was liable and willing to pay, it ought to have been submitted to the jury as tending to prove a new promise; if it did not, the nonsuit was properly ordered. Russell v. Copp,
It is said by the defendant, that the evidence was of an offer to pay a part of the debt upon a condition in full discharge of the whole, which was not accepted or executed. If this is correct, the evidence was incompetent, and there was no error. Atwood v. Coburn,
The evidence did not tend to show an acknowledgment of more than one third of the note. As to the other two thirds, there was no evidence of a new promise.
Nonsuit set aside.
STANLEY, J., did not sit.