History
  • No items yet
midpage
Norris v. Ward
59 N.H. 487
| N.H. | 1879
|
Check Treatment

It does not appear that the defendant, when he promised to pay the note after its dishonor, knew that no demand had been made upon the maker at the maturity of the note. In order to render his promise effectual, he must have known that no demand had been made. Ladd v. Kenney, 2 N.H. 340; Otis v. Hussey, 3 N.H. 346; Whitney v. Abbott, 5 N.H. 379; Farrington v. Brown,7 N.H. 271; Woodman v. Eastman, 10 N.H. 366; Bank v. Brown, 12 N.H. 325; Caldwell v. Porter, 17 N.H. 27; Rogers v. Hackett, 21 N.H. 100; Edwards v. Tandy, 36 N.H. 544; Hopkins v. Liswell, 12 Mass. 52; 3 Kent Com. 113.

Judgment on the report for the defendant.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Norris v. Ward
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 5, 1879
Citation: 59 N.H. 487
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.