Trask v. Karrick
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on promissory notes. Heard on special demurrer to the declaration, in vacation after the March Term, 1913, Chittenden County, Waterman, J. Demurrer overruled and declaration adjudged sufficient. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the Court
Powers, C.-J.
This case comes before us on a demurrer to the declaration. The action is special assumpsit. One of the two counts is on a promissory note for five thousand dollars; the other is on a note for twenty thousand dollars. Both are alleged to have been given by the defendants to John 0. Ropes and Charles B.Wells, testamentary trustees of Samuel S. Allen, and indorsed to the plaintiff’s testator, John C. Ropes, — he having resigned as trustee,- — by said Wells and John Prentiss, the said testator’s successor as trustee.
1. It is said in support of the demurrer that it does not…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sowles v. CarrSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Pope v. StacySupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Chester & Tamaroa Coal & Railroad v. LickissIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Smythe v. ScottIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Perkins, Doe & Co. v. BradleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- McAndrews v. LeonardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1926
- Giguere, Admr. v. RosselotSupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
- Southern Pacific Co. v. ARIZONA CORPORATION COM'NArizona Supreme Court · 1965
- Town of Cody v. Buffalo Bill Memorial Ass'nWyoming Supreme Court · 1948
- Babbitt Bros. Trading Co. v. First National BankArizona Supreme Court · 1927
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.