Case Name: JOHN M'CRILLIS vs. JOHN S. HOW
Court: New Hampshire Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1826-02
Citations: 3 N.H. 348
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN M’CRILLIS vs. JOHN S. HOW.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
JOHN M’CRILLIS vs. JOHN S. HOW.
No action can be maintained against an infant, upon his promissory note.
But an action may be supported against an infant on an account, for necessaries furnished him, a.though he may have given his note for the amount of such account.
Assumpsit upon a note, dated February 21, 1823, for §21,92, made by the defendant and payable to the plaintiff or order. There was also a count upon an account for medicines and visits, as a physician, amounting to $21,92.
The cause was submitted to the decision of the court, upon the following facts. The plaintiff did the services, and furnished the medicines, mentioned in the second count; but at the time, the defendant was an infant under the age of twenty-one years. The services so rendered, and the medicines so delivered, were necessary and proper for the defendant. On tire 21st February, 1823, the defendant gave to the plaintiff the note, mentioned in the first count, to balance said account; and the plaintiff did balance the account upon his book, by giving credit for the said note. At the time the said note was given, the defendant was an infant, under the age of twenty-one years.
W. Sawyer, for the plaintiff.
J. H. Woodman, for the defendant.

Opinion:
By the court.
It has long been settled, that no action can be maintained against an infant, upon a promissory note. The reason assigned is, because, if the note was held to he valid, the infant would, when the note was in the hands of a bona fide endorsee, be precluded from disputing the original debt. Chitt. on Bill. 24.—1 D. & E. 40, Freeman vs. Hurst.—3 Caines' Rep. 322, Van Winkle vs. Mitcham.—10 John. 33, Swazey vs. The adm'r. of Vanderheyden.—2 Starkie 36, Ingledew vs. Douglas.—Campbell 552, Williamson vs. Watts.—Carthew 160, Williams vs. Harrison et a.
The plaintiff then cannot recover upon his first count. — - But we see no objection to a judgment in his favor, on the second count. A void note, given to balance an account, is no satisfaction. 2 Johns. 455, Markle vs. Hatfield.—1 Esp. N. P. R. 5.—6 D. & E. 52, Puckford vs. Maxwell.—1 N. H. R. 281.—3 Brod. & Bing. 295.—7 Taunton 311, Hickling vs. Hardy.—4 East 147.
Judgment for the plaintiff.