Holbrook v. Blodget
Supreme Court of Vermont
. This was an action of Assumpsit brought on two promissory notes, purporting to be executed by the defendant, to said intestate, on the 24th day of July 1819, one for $20, and the other for $132, &c. Plea of payment of $500, to the plaintiff, as administrator, on the 12th July 1832, in full satisfaction of said notes.
Read the full summary
. This was an action of Assumpsit brought on two promissory notes, purporting to be executed by the defendant, to said intestate, on the 24th day of July 1819, one for $20, and the other for $132, &c. Plea of payment of $500, to the plaintiff, as administrator, on the 12th July 1832, in full satisfaction of said notes. To support this plea which was traversed, and issue joined to the country, the defendant gave in evidence a receipt in writing of that date, whereby the plaintiff under his own hand, as administrator acknowledged the receipt of $500, of the defendant, in full df all demands,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Williams; J.
The question to be decided in this case arises from the omission of the Court to charge the jury as requested by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff was entitled to the charge requested, then the judgement must be reversed, as the Court omitted to state the law as claimed by; the plaintiff. The first and third request appear to be nearly the same, and are founded on the idea that the agreement of the defendant not to oppose the allowance of the plain-, tiff’s account, as administrator would not- be a legal consideration for the discharge…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dreyfus v. RobertsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Sherburne v. GoodwinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
- Leak v. IsaacsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1847