Austin v. Belknap
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit in general and special counts. Heard upon demurrer to the defendant’s plea, December Term, 1880, Powers, J., presiding. Plea adjudged sufficient. The case is stated in the opinion. • The plea discloses no defence. There was no consideration moving between the parties. It was thus an executed consideration, and so no basis for an agreement founded upon its delivery.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit in general and special counts. Heard upon demurrer to the defendant’s plea, December Term, 1880, Powers, J., presiding. Plea adjudged sufficient. The case is stated in the opinion. • The plea discloses no defence. There was no consideration moving between the parties. It was thus an executed consideration, and so no basis for an agreement founded upon its delivery. There was no new consideration for the change in its application from the note to the book account, and thus was binding no longer than the parties continued to act under it; and as the plea does not even allege that-the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Veazey, J.
The declaration contains a special count on a promissory note, and the common counts. The defendant Bel*497knap answered by plea, to which the plaintiff filed a general demurrer. The objection to the plea urged in argument is that it does not show that therts was any consideration moving between the parties to the agreement to discharge Belknap. The plea alleges in substance that the plaintiff is not and never was the owner of the note in question, but that it is now and always has been the property of one Whitney, to whom it was given and made…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Clifford v. West Hartford Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1931
- Beam v. FishSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933
- First National Bank of Fair Haven v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893