Woodbridge v. Austin
Supreme Court of Vermont
CASE on a promissory note, endorsee against promisor, with plea of set-off. The plaintiff declared upon a promissory note, dated at Quebec, November 1, 1790, made by the defendant to Thomas Aylwin, or order, for the sum of 251l. 11s. 9d. Halifax currency, payable on the 13th of June following.
Read the full summary
CASE on a promissory note, endorsee against promisor, with plea of set-off. The plaintiff declared upon a promissory note, dated at Quebec, November 1, 1790, made by the defendant to Thomas Aylwin, or order, for the sum of 251l. 11s. 9d. Halifax currency, payable on the 13th of June following. That since the decease of Aylwin, to wit, on the 22d day of February, 1793, the contents being, then due and unpaid, John William Woolsey, curator on the estate of Aylwin, appointed and authorized by the laws of the British Province of Lower Canada, for a valuable consideration by his endorsement under…
1Per curiam
The Court are clearly of opinion, that when a demand is barred by the existing laws of a foreign country, where the contract was made, it cannot be revived by transferring it to an inhabitant of this State. But there are several obvious difficulties which present against the several demands of either party, which can only be removed by a knowledge of the existing laws, and their practical operation in the Province of Lower Canada. Either party may have his election to continue the cause until the next term, that in the interim satisfactory evidence of the laws of that Province may be…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Eastwood v. KennedyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- Morrisette v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1902
- American Surety Co. v. SandbergDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1915
- Dawson v. PetersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Territt v. WoodruffSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847