Wheatley v. Waldo
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, for money had and received. Trial by jury, ■ •January Term, 1863, Peck, J. presiding. The plaintiff hired of the defendant $1000, for which he gave five two hundred dollar notes and one sixty dollar note, and claimed on the trial that the sixty dollar note was given as a bonus and as usurious interest on the loan.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for money had and received. Trial by jury, ■ •January Term, 1863, Peck, J. presiding. The plaintiff hired of the defendant $1000, for which he gave five two hundred dollar notes and one sixty dollar note, and claimed on the trial that the sixty dollar note was given as a bonus and as usurious interest on the loan. The defendant introduced evidence tending to prove that he refused several times when applied to by the plaintiff to loan him the thousand dollars, and that he had to spend some time in raising the money, and had to borrow a part of it, and also had to take money in his…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
In order to entitle this court to revise the 'action of the county court upon the motion to set aside the verdict, it should, at least, clearly appear that the judgment is affected with error, on account of a mistake of the jury, of which it was the legal duty of the county court to take notice, and for which it was the legal duty of that court to set the verdict aside.
The rule of damages was the proper subject of charge to the jury, and perhaps may be regarded as involved in some or all of the first three requests for a charge.
What'was in fact the charge of the court on that subject does not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hubbell v. GaleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lincoln v. Central Vermont Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Ewing v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871
- Burnham v. Town of StraffordSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
- Yearteau v. Bacon's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Clutch v. EbrightOhio Court of Appeals · 1916