Town of Arlington v. Hinds
Supreme Court of Vermont
THIS was an action of assumpsit on a note of hand. Plea, the general issue, which was joined to the Court, by agreement of parties. The evidence given by the plaintiff on the trial, was not objected to by the counsel for the defendant, it having been agreed that the same objections to the evidence might be urged upon the argument, as would have been proper upon the trial.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit on a note of hand. Plea, the general issue, which was joined to the Court, by agreement of parties. The evidence given by the plaintiff on the trial, was not objected to by the counsel for the defendant, it having been agreed that the same objections to the evidence might be urged upon the argument, as would have been proper upon the trial. The note declared upon was read in evidence, of the following tenor“ Arlington, September 27, 1808. For value received I promise to pay Luther Stone, Town Treasurer, or his successors in office, eighty-four dollars…
1Opinion of the Court
Skinner, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff’s right to recover is resisted on the ground that the town is not a party to the contract, and cannot maintain the action; and also, that the statute of limitations constitutes a bar.
We learn from the records of this Court, that an action has been heretofore brought upon the nóte here given in evidence by Luther Stone, as Treasurer of the town of Arlington, in which judgment was rendered for the defendant, upon the principle that no right of action thereon accrued to him in his official character. It also appears by the records…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Valiquette v. Clark Bros. Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- Johnson v. CatlinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Town of Jamaica v. HartSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880