Dewey v. Washburn
Supreme Court of Vermont
The plaintiff declared,in assumpsit,” that the defendant, on the 22d day of May,1838,at Guildhall aforesaid,by his promissory note,of that date, for value received,made under his hand in writing, promised the plaintiff to pay him or order the sum of fifty-seven dollars in good merchantable hay, wheat, oats, rye, buckwheat or barley, at cash price, to be delivered on or before the first day in June next after date.”
Read the full summary
The plaintiff declared,in assumpsit,” that the defendant, on the 22d day of May,1838,at Guildhall aforesaid,by his promissory note,of that date, for value received,made under his hand in writing, promised the plaintiff to pay him or order the sum of fifty-seven dollars in good merchantable hay, wheat, oats, rye, buckwheat or barley, at cash price, to be delivered on or before the first day in June next after date.” There was a second count differing from the first only in describing the instrument declared upon as a “ writing obligatory.” The breach was alleged as follows : “ yet the said…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
— The defendant, in this case, insists that the plaintiff’s declaration is bad on general demurrer. A promissory note or bill of exchange has long been considered an instrument in the nature of a specialty, importing on its face a consideration, and which, according to the custom of merchants, might be declared upon, without setting forth *581any consideration for the promise in the instrument. But any reference to the custom, in the declaration, is unnecessary. Erskine v. Murray, 2 Lord Raymond, 1542. So it is unnecessary to raise a regular…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Perry v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Denison v. TysonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
- Goss v. Barker & HaightSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Heywood v. HeywoodSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1856