This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Benton et al., Adm'Rs, v. Hopkins et al., 68 N.H. 606 (1894) - Opinion
December 1, 1894 - Opinion
Coos,
Dec., 1894.
Benton & a., Adm’rs, v. Hopkins & a.
Assumpsit, upon a promissory note payable to the order of M. V. Hopkins and bearing the following indorsements: “ M. V. Hopkins, J. M. Hopkins. Waiving demand and notice. M. V. Hopkins, J. M. Hopkins.” The plaintiffs are administrators of the estate of Jacob Benton, indorsee of the note. At a hearing before a referee, the defendants moved that J. M. Hopkins be discharged, on the ground that successive indorsers cannot be joined as defendants, offered his evidence in regard to the note, and excepted to a denial of the motion and the exclusion of the evidence. The plaintiffs did not elect to testify.
Brew, Jordan Buckley, for the plaintiffs.
Ladd $ Fletcher, for the defendants.
Clark, J.
The question in this case is one of procedure for the trial term. It does not appear whether the defendants are not jointly liable to Benton, the indorsee. If they are, there is no question that the action can be maintained.
As the plaintiffs did not elect to testify, the defendants could not testify to any facts occurring in the lifetime of Benton. P: 8., c. 224, s. 16.
Case discharged.
All concurred.
Case records
Open case page| Date | Record Text | Type | Party | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| December 1, 1894 | Benton et al., Adm'Rs, v. Hopkins et al. Current page | Opinion | Supreme Court | Reporter |