Case ID: nh_63/html/0618-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blodgett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Merrimack,
    June, 1885.]
    Bates v. Hazen.
    Assumpsit on an account annexed. Trial by the court. The dispute was, whether the plaintiff agreed to take the note of one Nichols in payment, provided Nichols said he would pay the note to him, or whether he took it as collateral security for the debt. The plaintiff excepted to the admission of a letter from Nichols to him, saying he would pay the note, and also moved to set aside the verdict, as against evidence.
    
      W W. Elanders, for the plaintiff.
    
      A. P. Davis, for the defendant.
   Blodgett, J.

The letter was competent, and no cause is shown for setting aside the verdict. The plaintiff testified that he took the note as collateral security; the defendant, that it was taken as payment. The issue thus presented is one of fact purely, and there is nothing in the evidence as reported tending to show that the judgment of the trial court was not fairly exercised in its consideration, or that the conclusion reached might not properly have been arrived at by any tribunal.

Exceptions overruled.

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