From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Merrimack Farmers Exch., Inc. v. Elliott

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Exeter District Court
Apr 5, 1971
276 A.2d 258 (N.H. 1971)

Opinion

No. 6170.

Decided April 5, 1971.

1. A holder in due course may recover from the drawer the amount of a negotiable instrument drawn with recourse (RSA 383-A:3-413), even though bearing a "stop payment" order by the drawer.

2. RSA 382-A:1-106, as it relates to placing an aggrieved party under RSA chapter 382 in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed, cannot be construed to allow the recovery of counsel fees, in addition to regular costs, from the adverse party.

Perkins, Holland, Donovan Beckett (William H. M. Beckett by brief), for the plaintiff.

Wayne J. Mullavey, for the defendants, filed no brief.


This is an action of assumpsit on a check dated June 19, 1969, for $250, drawn by the defendant Baker upon the Amoskeag National Bank of Manchester, and negotiated by the defendant Elliott to the plaintiff Merrimack Farmers Exchange, Inc. The check, received as an exhibit, has a "stop payment" stamped upon it.

At the trial, neither defendant testified and the court found that the plaintiff took the instrument for value, in good faith and without notice of any defense to it.

At the close of the plaintiff's case, a motion to dismiss as to the defendant Baker was granted and the plaintiff excepted. The question thus raised was transferred under RSA 502-A:17-a by Alvah C. Drake, Special Justice of the Exeter District Court.

It appears undisputed that the check is a negotiable instrument and was negotiated as such. RSA 382-A:3-104(1)(a)(d), (2)(b). The maker, who was the defendant Baker, did not deny his signature and it accordingly is admitted. RSA 382-A:3-307; Superior Court Rule 43. See also Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Patterson, 110 N.H. 261, 266 A.2d 116 (1970).

On the strength of the court's unchallenged finding that the plaintiff took the check for value, in good faith and without notice of any defense to it, it was a holder in due course. RSA 382-A:3-302. As such, it took the instrument free of any defenses on the part of the defendant Baker, with whom it had not dealt and who, as a matter of fact, has offered no defense. RSA 382-A:3-305. See also Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Patterson supra. Since the defendant Baker did not draw without recourse and has no defense, he must pay the amount of the check to the plaintiff. RSA 382-A:3-413; Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Patterson supra.

The plaintiff urges, in addition to the regular costs to which it is entitled, that it should be allowed counsel fees in order to place it in as good a position as if Baker had fully performed his agreement. Reliance is placed upon RSA 382-A:1-106, which reads as follows: "(1) The remedies provided by this chapter shall be liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved party may be put in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed but neither consequential or special nor penal damages may be had except as specifically provided in this chapter or by other rule of law." "The law is well settled in New Hampshire that there can be no recovery of counsel fees from the adverse party to a cause in the absence of statutory authorization, agreement between the parties, or some established exception." Utica Insurance Co. v. Plante, 106 N.H. 525, 526, 214 A.2d 742 (1965). See also Devoid v. Anderson, 108 N.H. 89, 227 A.2d 777 (1967); Guay v. Association, 87 N.H. 216, 177 A. 409 (1935). Nor do we believe that RSA 382-A:1-106, containing as it does certain restrictions, can be construed to require the allowance of counsel fees in addition to the regular costs.

The plaintiff's exception to the dismissal of the case against the defendant Baker is sustained and the order is

Exception sustained; remanded.


Summaries of

Merrimack Farmers Exch., Inc. v. Elliott

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Exeter District Court
Apr 5, 1971
276 A.2d 258 (N.H. 1971)
Case details for

Merrimack Farmers Exch., Inc. v. Elliott

Case Details

Full title:MERRIMACK FARMERS EXCHANGE, INC. v. WARREN ELLIOTT and WATSON W. BAKER

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Exeter District Court

Date published: Apr 5, 1971

Citations

276 A.2d 258 (N.H. 1971)
276 A.2d 258

Citing Cases

Manchester Housing Auth. v. Belcourt

As to the claims for attorneys' fees, this court has reiterated recently the well-established principle of…

Hoppe v. First Midwest Bk., Poplar Bluff

The New Hampshire Supreme Court and the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Florida law, rejected…