Perry v. Smith
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money had and received, money paid, and money lent. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and also pleaded in bar the delivery of certain wool for the plaintiff at Paine’s factory in Northfield, — which latter plea was traversed, and issue was joined. The plaintiff, in his specification, claimed to recover the interest, from April 1, 1847, to April 1, 1848, upon a note for $500, hereinafter described.
Read the full summary
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money had and received, money paid, and money lent. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and also pleaded in bar the delivery of certain wool for the plaintiff at Paine’s factory in Northfield, — which latter plea was traversed, and issue was joined. The plaintiff, in his specification, claimed to recover the interest, from April 1, 1847, to April 1, 1848, upon a note for $500, hereinafter described. The writ was dated June 6, 1848. Trial by jury, April Term, 1849, — Kellogg, J., presiding. On trial the plaintiff gave in evidence the note described in his…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Poland, J.
The general doctrine, that money due upon a promissory note, whether principal or interest, may be recovered under a general declaration in assumpsit for money had and received, is too well settled at the present day, to admit of any doubt, or to require *306any discussion. The defendant insists, that this doctrine does not obtain in the case of notes payable in specific articles, which are not negotiable, and are not considered as technical “promissory notes.” In England, where these contracts for the payment of specific articles are placed by…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Jones v. FalesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Young v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Smith v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- Wainwright v. StrawSupreme Court of Vermont · 1843
- Way v. WakefieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1835
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Wetzel & T. Ry. Co. v. Tennis Bros.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1906
- Chaffee v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882
- Nash v. HoxieWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Cleveland & Pittsburgh Railroad v. KelleyOhio Supreme Court · 1855
- Hazeltine v. BrockwaySupreme Court of Colorado · 1899
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.