Case Name: Charles v. Davis, Ex'r
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1882-12
Citations: 62 N.H. 375
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles v. Davis, Ex’r.
Judges: Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 375–375

Head Matter:
Charles v. Davis, Ex’r.
A judgment of foreclosure on a mortgage, for the whole amount of the mortgage-note, is conclusive evidence of the validity of the note; and the defendant, having paid the amount of the conditional judgment, cannot maintain an action to recover back a part on a claim that usurious interest was a part of the consideration of the note.
Assumpsit. Facts found by a referee. The plaintiff having given a note secured by mortgage, and a judgment of foreclosure having been rendered against him for the amount of the note, he paid it, and brings this suit to recover back a part on a claim that usurious interest was a part of the consideration of the note.
F. B. Osgood and Copeland Fdgerly, for the plaintiff.
T. J. Smith and J. Hatch, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Doe, C. J.
The judgment rendered against this plaintiff in the suit in which he could have pleaded usury, is conclusive evidence of the legality of the mortgage-note. Cooke v. Jones, Cowp. 727; Edmonson v. Popkin, 1 B. & P. 270; Flint v. Sheldon, 13 Mass. 443, 452, 453; Thatcher v. Gammon, 12 Mass. 267; Footman v. Stetson, 32 Me. 17; Tibbetts v. Shapleigh, 59 N. H. 319. " If there be a bona fide legal process under which money is recovered, although not actually due, it cannot be recovered back, inasmuch as there must be some end to litigation." Cadaval v. Collins, 4 A. & E. 858, 867.
Judgment for the defendant.
Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.