Worthen v. Dickey
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trial by jury, September Term, 1879, Washington County, Redfield, J., presiding; and verdict for the plaintiff. Action, assumpsit on a note. The case is stated in the opinion. The court below erred in excluding the evidence offered to show a part payment. Such evidence was admissible, not as a defence, but in reduction of damages.
Read the full summary
Trial by jury, September Term, 1879, Washington County, Redfield, J., presiding; and verdict for the plaintiff. Action, assumpsit on a note. The case is stated in the opinion. The court below erred in excluding the evidence offered to show a part payment. Such evidence was admissible, not as a defence, but in reduction of damages. Ferris v. Mosher, 27 Vt. 218 ; 1 Chitty on PI. 477-80; 2 Greenl. on Ev. ss. 135 & 516. Gen. Sts. c. 30, s. 32, applies only to matters required by the common law to be pleaded in bar ; and Gen. Sts. c. 33, s. 15, applies only to matters operating to eitinguish a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Ross, J.
The only exception taken on the trial by the defendants, which is now insisted on, is, in regard to the correctness of the ruling of the County Court excluding the evidence offered to show a partial payment on the note in suit. The contention of the defendants is supported by Shaw v. Moon, 49 Vt. 68. That was an action of general assumpsit, tried on the plea of non assumpsit. It was to recover for the work of the plaintiff for the defendant. On the trial before the referee, the defendant offered evidence of certain cash items which he claimed…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Thrall v. WrightSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
- Britton v. Bishop & EvertsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- Matthie v. Town of BartonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1867
- Farr v. PayneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- James v. AikenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wilson v. Union Mutual Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1903