Pelton v. D. & S. Mott
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note. Plea, non assumpsit. On trial in the county court the plaintiff gave in evidence a note signed by the defendants.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note. Plea, non assumpsit. On trial in the county court the plaintiff gave in evidence a note signed by the defendants. The defendants then offered to prove, by parol, that at the time the note in question was signed, a suit was pending in chancery in favor of E. Pelton against the defendants and J. Mott and J. Truman, in relation to a tract of land in Alburgh : that the plaintiff then pretended to own and have the control of said Pelton’s interest in said suit in chancery and in the premises mentioned in said bill, and that the defendants, for…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
The only question in this case, which can be raised, is whether the conditions, upon which the note was to become operative, had been complied with ; and of that we think there can be no doubt. It is settled law that when a bill in chancery is regularly dismissed upon the merits, and the matters of the bill have been passed upon, it is a bar to a second suit- for the same matters, unless the first bill is dismissed without prejudice. Perine v. Dunn, *1504 Johns. Ch. Rep. 140. Prettyman v. Prettyman, 1 Vern. Rep. 310. Milford on Pl. 3 Am. edit.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Perine v. DunnNew York Court of Chancery · 1819
- Rosse v. RustNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gardiner v. MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Gardiner v. . MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Martin v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1897
- Harris v. Harris's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Simmons v. . McCullinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.