Britton v. Bishop & Everts
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon defendants’ joint and several promissory note, dated January 20th 1837, for $1772,58, payable on the first day of September, then next, with interest, to Smith Ballou, or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded, 1. the general issue,and 2. payment. The plaintiff joined in the general issue, and traversed the plea of payment.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon defendants’ joint and several promissory note, dated January 20th 1837, for $1772,58, payable on the first day of September, then next, with interest, to Smith Ballou, or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded, 1. the general issue,and 2. payment. The plaintiff joined in the general issue, and traversed the plea of payment. The defendants further pleaded, in bar to part of the note in suit, an agreement of Ballou, the payee of said note, to apply thereon the amount of a note made by said Ballou to Buskirk & Proudfit, payable to them or order, and by…
1Opinion of the Court
Redfield J.
The only question, presented for the consideration of this court, arises upon the third and fourth pleas of the defendant. These pleas are substantially the same, and amount to nothing more than an alleged agreement on the part of Ballou, the original payee of the note in suit, to apply a lesser note, given by him to the firm of Buskirk & Proudfit, and by them indorsed to the defendants, upon the note now sued. It is alleged, that this agreement was made on the 29th of August 1837, and that, at that time, and for a long time thereafter, to wit, twenty days, Ballou was the owner of…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Chester v. . DorrNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- McDonald v. MackenzieOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Haydon v. NicolettiNevada Supreme Court · 1884
- Walbridge v. KibbeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Haley v. CongdonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1884
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.