Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1880

Merrill v. Carr

Merrill v. Carr
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Decided June 5, 1880 · Bingham, Smith
60 N.H. 114

Merrill v. Carr

Opinion of the Court

Bingham, J.

When the plaintiff was discovered carrying away the defendant’s property, a search of his house for other stolen property was contemplated. A part of the consideration of the note was the defendant’s agreement not to search the plaintiff’s. *115 house that night. Issuing a warrant to search a house for stolen property is a proceeding to recover the property and bring the thief to punishment. G. L., c. 255, ss. 2, 3, 4; Morrison Just. & Sher. 260. A contract to suppress a criminal prosecution, even for a limited time, is illegal. The consideration of the note in question was partly the defendant’s agreement not to commence criminal proceedings against the plaintiff before the next day. A note is void if part of the consi de ration is illegal. Hinds v. Chamberlin, 6 N. H. 225, 229, 231; Forshner v. Whitcomb, 44 N. H. 14.

Set-off disallowed.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.