Peck v. Hibbard
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. The defendant pleaded several pleas in bar, to one of which the plaintiff replied specially; to which replication the defendant demurred. The facts in the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The County Court, September Term, 1852, — Poland, J., presiding, — proforma adjudged the replication insufficient, and rendered judgment for the defendant. Exceptions by the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. The defendant pleaded several pleas in bar, to one of which the plaintiff replied specially; to which replication the defendant demurred. The facts in the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The County Court, September Term, 1852, — Poland, J., presiding, — proforma adjudged the replication insufficient, and rendered judgment for the defendant. Exceptions by the plaintiff. I. The claim being negotiable paper, the plaintiff not a citizen of Canada, when he purchased, and having purchased for value and without notice of the bankrupt…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Isham, J.
The questions in this case arise upon a demurrer to the replication. The action is in assumpsit on a promissory note dated March 18, 1848, executed by the defendant and his copartner, and delivered to the payee at Montreal, in the province of Canada, in which place the makers and payee resided. The defense rests upon the validity of a discharge in bankruptcy granted by the courts in that province, which is set forth, with the proceedings under which it was obtained, in the' special pleas in bar. From the facts admitted by the demurrer, it…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Harrison v. SterrySupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- Slacum v. PomerySupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Baker v. WheatonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- M'millan v. M'neillSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Wellman v. MeadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1919
- McLeod v. Conn. & Pass. R. R. R.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1886
- Osborne v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Hanford v. PaineSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Thomas v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1899
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.