Nims v. Rood
Supreme Court of Vermont
The bill alleged that the orators, being partners in business, under the firm of Daniel P. Lapham and Co. on the 2d day of December, 1828, executed to Levi Rood their, promissory note of that date, for $54,84, payable in ninety days from its date, and that the said Rood died before said note became due, having, before his decease, become indebted to the orators, for the medical advice and attendance of said Nims, one of the orators, during his last sickness, in the sum of…
Read the full summary
The bill alleged that the orators, being partners in business, under the firm of Daniel P. Lapham and Co. on the 2d day of December, 1828, executed to Levi Rood their, promissory note of that date, for $54,84, payable in ninety days from its date, and that the said Rood died before said note became due, having, before his decease, become indebted to the orators, for the medical advice and attendance of said Nims, one of the orators, during his last sickness, in the sum of $10,50, which was by the orators charged on book ; that a few hours after the death of said Rood, and without the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Chancellor.
The orators offer no proof of the agreement stated in their bill; it must, therefore, be taken as admitted in the answer. If the answer is not entitled to credit, as the orators claim in their argument, the bill is without any evidence to support it.
With respect to the note executed by the deceased to Cady, there is no proof in relation to it, and it is wholly denied in the answer that there was any agreement about it. This note must be laid out of the question.
It is admitted there was some agreement in relation to the notes given…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Administrators of Smith v. Administrators of WainwrightSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852