Haley v. Congdon
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Trial by court, September Term, 1883, Veazey, J., presiding. Judgment for plaintiff to recover the balance due on the note. The note was given to Anthony Haley, the father of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Trial by court, September Term, 1883, Veazey, J., presiding. Judgment for plaintiff to recover the balance due on the note. The note was given to Anthony Haley, the father of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice: “ That the note described in the plaintiff’s specifications has been fully paid; That while said note was held and owned by the said Anthony Haley, the payee thereof, dealings were 'had between this defendant and the said Anthony Haley, wherein and whereby the said Anthony Haley became and was indebted to this…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tart, J.
It has been many times expressly decided in this State that in a case like the present, the defendant cannot plead in offset a claim in his favor’ against the payee of the note; but that under the general issue, he can make any defence against the note, which grew out of the note transaction, or out of any agreement between himself and the payee in relation to the note. Among the cases so holding are Britton v. Bishop et al., 11 Vt. 70; and Armstrong v Noble, 55 Vt. 429. In Adams v. Bliss, 16 Vt. 39, it was held that offset could not be pleaded…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Adams v. BlissSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Britton v. Bishop & EvertsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
3Cited by3 opinions
- Auer & Twitchell v. Robertson Paper Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1920
- MANUFACTURERS'FINANCE CORPORATION v. Vye-Neill Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1933
- Shepard v. Commercial Credit CorporationSupreme Court of Vermont · 1962