Town of Hinesburgh v. Sumner
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit upon a'note of hand, dated November 10th,. 1834, signed by said Sumner, as principal, and said Loveland, as surety, payable to the town Treasurer of Hinesburgh. The defendants pleaded the general issue and two pleas in bar, one of duress ®£ imprisonment, and the other, that the defendants were induced to give the note to stifle a criminal prosecution.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit upon a'note of hand, dated November 10th,. 1834, signed by said Sumner, as principal, and said Loveland, as surety, payable to the town Treasurer of Hinesburgh. The defendants pleaded the general issue and two pleas in bar, one of duress ®£ imprisonment, and the other, that the defendants were induced to give the note to stifle a criminal prosecution. On the trial, the defendants offered to prove, that, before the said 10th day of November,two prosecutions had been commenced by the town-, grand jjiror against Sumner,for retailing liquor without licence, — under…
1Opinion of the CourtCollamer, J.
In assumpsit,it may now be considered as settled, that every- defence, except tender,and the statute of limitations, may be given in evidence under the general issue. If, therefore, the evidence offered by the defendants, constituted or tended to prove any legal defence, it should have been admitted, as the general issue was pleaded. It is true, the testimony did not tend to prove duress, as no unlawful imprisonment was either suffered or threatened. The grand juror was the prosecuting officer for these penalties to final judgment, and he had power to receive the amount of the fine and cost,…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Wight v. RindshopfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1907
- Cheltenham Fire-Brick Co. v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Henry v. State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- McNamee v. BuckSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.