Chellis v. Woods
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of book account, brought into the county court by appeal. Judgment to account having been rendered, an auditor was appointed, who reported, that the plaintiff presented an account, as iollows : “ September, 1836. Daniel Woods, Dr. To cash, . . . 11,00.” In relation to which, the auditor found the following facts: 1. Before and at the time of making the charge, the defendant held two promissory notes against the plaintiff and one William Chellis, on which…
Read the full summary
This was an action of book account, brought into the county court by appeal. Judgment to account having been rendered, an auditor was appointed, who reported, that the plaintiff presented an account, as iollows : “ September, 1836. Daniel Woods, Dr. To cash, . . . 11,00.” In relation to which, the auditor found the following facts: 1. Before and at the time of making the charge, the defendant held two promissory notes against the plaintiff and one William Chellis, on which about $29,00 remained due, and at the same time there were open and unsettled book accounts between the parties, entered…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
This is an action on book, and the plaintiff's claim is for $11, cash, which the defendant insists was paid to be applied on a note which he held against the plaintiff. The general rule that money, paid to be applied on a particular demand, cannot be made the ground of action, is too well established to be called in question, but this rule can only apply to those cases where the payment, in itself, operates, pro tanto, to extinguish so much of the demand upon which the money is paid, and not to cases where, by the agreement of parties, the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Stephan v. MetzgerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Stanley v. TurnerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
- Jewett v. WinshipSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869