Chamberlain v. Hopps
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was art action of assumpsit upon two promissory notes described in the declaration. — Plea, general issue. The plaintiff in support of his daclaration offered to prove that the notes in question were executed by the defendant for a certain piece of land. That the defendant, William Hopps Jr. called on the plaintiff who resides in Burlington and concluded a trade with him^for the land.
Read the full summary
This was art action of assumpsit upon two promissory notes described in the declaration. — Plea, general issue. The plaintiff in support of his daclaration offered to prove that the notes in question were executed by the defendant for a certain piece of land. That the defendant, William Hopps Jr. called on the plaintiff who resides in Burlington and concluded a trade with him^for the land. Upon that occasion the plaintiff executed his bond to the defendant William Hopps Jr. conditioned to deed the land to said Hopps upon the payments of the notes in question— and at the same time the said…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Phelps, J.
It is admitted that the plaintiff must prove a joint contract in order to recover. The note in question when delivered to the plaintiff was the note of Hopps Jr. only. It was subsequently delivered to him for the purpose of obtaining the signature of the other defendant. It was signed by him, but never re-delivered to the plaintiff. Did it then ever take effect, as between these p4vties, as the joint note of the two defendants.
We think not. Although upon its face the-joint note of the two, yet never having been delivered after it assumed that…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Barrett v. DodgeSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1890
- Michigan Insurance v. Estate of LeavenworthSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- First National Bank v. StrangIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Peets v. BrattNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Leonard v. Adm'r of KeblerOhio Supreme Court · 1893