
    Hartshorn, Ex’r, v. Hartshorn.
    A void note is not a payment of the debt for which it is given, and the acceptance of it is not a discharge of the maker from his liability.
    Assumpsit, upon the defendant’s promissory note, with counts for money had and received, goods sold, labor and services, and for use and occupation. The note was given for the amount due from the defendant to the testator on a former note then surrendered, for the use and occupation of the testator’s lands, and for an agreed balance of accounts. The note was made and delivered on Sunday. The defendant claims that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, under the general counts, the several demands for which the note was given.
    
      George B. French, for the plaintiff.
    
      Robert M. Wallace and Charles J. Hamblett, for the defendant.
   Carpenter, J.

Giving a void note (Allen v. Deming, 14 N. H. 133) did not pay the debt for which it was given, nor discharge the defendant from his liability. Shaw v. Spooner, 9 N. H. 197; Burnham v. Spooner, 10 N. H. 165; Walker v. Lovell, 28 N. H. 138; Carleton v. Woods, 28 N. H. 290; Pecker v. Kennison, 46 N. H. 488.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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