Thrall v. Newell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon an alleged warranty, that a promissory note for one hundred and fifty dollars, transferred by the defendant to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration, and purporting to be signed by Theodore Woodward and John H. Philips, and bearing date November 13, 1838, was a good and valid note ; — -the plaintiff averring, that Woodward had recovered a judgment in his favor, in an action commenced by the plaintiff upon the note, upon the ground of his insanity at the…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon an alleged warranty, that a promissory note for one hundred and fifty dollars, transferred by the defendant to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration, and purporting to be signed by Theodore Woodward and John H. Philips, and bearing date November 13, 1838, was a good and valid note ; — -the plaintiff averring, that Woodward had recovered a judgment in his favor, in an action commenced by the plaintiff upon the note, upon the ground of his insanity at the time of signing it. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, April Term, 1846, — Williams, Ch. J., presiding. On trial…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hall, J.
It is in the first place insisted, in behalf of the defendant, that the written assignment furnished no evidence of a consideration for the contract. It is said, that the words “ for value received,” in the assignment, are not to be considered as forming a part of the contract of assignment, but as merely descriptive of the note. By comparing the note and assignment it will be seen, that (passing over the dates) the words “ for value received ” are the first in the note and the last in the assignment; and that therefore no *206argument can be drawn…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- President of the Bank of the United States v. President of the Bank of GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Batman v. MegowanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Young v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Markle v. HatfieldNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- Bank of St. Albans v. Farmers & Mechanics BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Minnesota Lumber Co. v. Whitebreast Coal Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Grand Prairie Gravel Co. v. Joe B. Wills Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1916
- Ledwich v. . McKimNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- McClure v. . Central Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Meyer v. RichardsSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.