Goodell v. Brandon National Bank
Supreme Court of Vermont
General assumpsit. Plea, the general issue witb notice of special matter. Trial by jury at the September term, 1890, Taft, J., presiding. The court directed a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff is not estopped. Mere lapse of time, no matter how long, does not work an estoppel. It is merely presumptive evidence of payment. Grrnesy.
Read the full summary
General assumpsit. Plea, the general issue witb notice of special matter. Trial by jury at the September term, 1890, Taft, J., presiding. The court directed a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff is not estopped. Mere lapse of time, no matter how long, does not work an estoppel. It is merely presumptive evidence of payment. Grrnesy. Weeks, 19 Vt. 178; Dwming v. GhanriberlAn, 6 Vt. 127; Eroarts v. Nason, 11 Vt. 122; Kimball v. Ives, 17 Vt. 430; Grafton Bank v. Doe, 19 Vt. 463; Mattock v. Bellamy, 8 Vt. 463; Sparha/wkY. Buell, 9 Vt. 41; McQueen v. Fletcher, 4…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ROSS, Ch. J.
For many years the plaintiff kept his account and did his business, with the defendant bank. This is an action of assumpsit, by which he seeks to recover $1,000 and interest, which he claims the defendant overcharged him in his account May 5, 1868. On that day he drew a check on the defendant payable to himself, which in the left hand corner had in figures $1,900, but written in the body, nine hundred dollars. The defendant charged him, in his account, nineteen hundred dollars. He claims that this is an overcharge of $1,000 and that he did…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Spencer v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1903
- Lyon v. WittersSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- Holman Ex Rel. Holman v. Randolph National BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Roberts v. W. H. Hughes Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1912