History
  • No items yet
midpage
Whittaker v. Ordway
38 A. 789
N.H.
1897
Check Treatment

The question whether Foster's agreement to "board out the amount of the note" upon the happening of the contingency named could have been enforced, need not be considered, for the agreement has been fully executed. As both he and the defendant understood that the board was furnished and accepted in payment of the note, it was payment. Jameson v. Carpenter, 68 N.H. 62. Payment by the maker of a note prior to its transfer is a good defence to an action against him by an indorsee who took it after it became due, although he paid a full consideration for it and had no notice of the payment. Odiorne v. *Page 183 Howard, 10 N.H. 343; Hill v. Huntress, 43 N.H. 480; Hardy v. Waddell,58 N.H. 460; Leavitt v. Peabody, 62 N.H. 185, 189.

Judgment for the defendant.

All concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Whittaker v. Ordway
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Jun 5, 1897
Citation: 38 A. 789
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.