Corliss & Way v. Grow
Supreme Court of Vermont
Heard on a referee’s report, December Term, 1883, Rowell, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show affirmatively that the bar of the statute is removed.
Read the full summary
Heard on a referee’s report, December Term, 1883, Rowell, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show affirmatively that the bar of the statute is removed. Wood Lim. ss. 98, 116; Biggs v. Roberts, 85 N. C. 151. If there is a disputed and an undisputed debt, or if there are two debts, — one barred by the statute and the other not barred, — a general payment on account will be of no avail at common law, under the statute, because it is left uncertain to which debt the payment was intended to be applied. But all the circumstances may be regarded to ascertain the intent of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, Ch. J.
The only question presented by the report of the referee is as to the legal effect of the payment of the $15, in July, 1879. At the time that payment was made, the plaintiff Way had an account of his own against the defendant, amounting to $9.44, and also the account of the plaintiffs which this suit is brought to recover for, and asked the defendant for some money on the accounts. Thereupon the defendant paid Way $15, which overpaid. Way’s account $5.56, which sum was afterwards, and about the time this suit was brought, credited to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ayer v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
3Cited by4 opinions
- Robie v. Estate of BriggsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887
- Gay's Estate v. HassomSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Fletcher v. BrainerdSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- Austin v. McClureSupreme Court of Vermont · 1888