Miner v. Downer
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on a promissory note, signed “Downer & Dana,” for 869,00, and dated November 14,1837; and the plaintiff alleged, that the defendants were partners, at the date of the note, under the firm of S. & W. Downer & Co., and that the note was given for their benefit, and for property which went to their use, and was, by mistake, signed “Downer & Dana,” instead of being signed by the style of the defendants’ firm.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note, signed “Downer & Dana,” for 869,00, and dated November 14,1837; and the plaintiff alleged, that the defendants were partners, at the date of the note, under the firm of S. & W. Downer & Co., and that the note was given for their benefit, and for property which went to their use, and was, by mistake, signed “Downer & Dana,” instead of being signed by the style of the defendants’ firm. The declaration contained, also, a count in indebitatus assumpsit, for goods &c. sold and delivered to the defendants. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, — Hebard, J.,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
The plaintiff in this suit has declared, in his first count, on a promissory note, dated Nov. 14, 1837, against the defendants, under the name of S. & W. Downer & Co. This note, he alleges, was, through mistake, signed Downer & Dana, instead of S. & W. Downer & Co., as it should have been, and was intended to be. The court below were requested to charge the jury, — 1, That there was no evidence, from which the jury could find for the plaintiff on the first count; — 2, That if the plaintiff, after delivering the hogs, received this note in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stackpole v. ArnoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Jackson ex dem. Houseman v. HartNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Reed v. WoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
3Cited by3 opinions
- Noyes v. HubbardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Palmer v. ElliotU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1858
- Zeiner v. MimsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892