Pierce v. Gilson
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of trover for the conversion of a note, which, the plaintiff alleged that he executed to the defendant, and subsequently paid, and left in the hands of the defendant, who refused to deliver it to the plaintiff, on request.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trover for the conversion of a note, which, the plaintiff alleged that he executed to the defendant, and subsequently paid, and left in the hands of the defendant, who refused to deliver it to the plaintiff, on request. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and introduced testimony tending to prove that he executed the note in question, and that he afterwards paid the full amount due on it, to the defendant, and, by mistake, left the note in defendant’s possession; that he afterwards called on the defendant for it, who declined to'give it up,- claiming that it was not…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
That an action of trover may be .maintained for a written security, is too well settled to admit of dispute. A paper, whether it be a lease, deed, note, or bill of exchange, is but evidence of a title, or of a contract; and,, if lost or wantonly destroyed, the title or the debt is not thereby destroyed. The same objection, which has been insisted on here, might be urged as an objection to any action of trover for a written security, viz. that the same evidence, which would maintain the action, would supply the want of the paper,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Buck v. KentSupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
- Eastman v. PotterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832
3Cited by11 opinions
- Payne v. ElliotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Spencer v. DearthSupreme Court of Vermont · 1870
- State v. GoodrichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- State v. BeatonWashington Supreme Court · 1919
- Ellsworth v. PotterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.