Bank of Rutland v. Woodruff & Marsden
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on two bills-of exchange, and on all the common counts. Plea, the general issue, and trial by the court at the September Term, I860, — Pierpoint, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on two bills-of exchange, and on all the common counts. Plea, the general issue, and trial by the court at the September Term, I860, — Pierpoint, J., presiding. The plaintiff introduced in evidence the bills of exchange declared on, with certificates of protest for non-payment attached, and also gave evidence from which the court found the following facts : The defendants were copartners in the produce trade, purchasing in the country, with their house of business in New York. The bills were made at Pawlet, in this state, (where they hear date) Nov. 8th, 1859, by one John J. Woodard…
1Opinion of the Court
Poland, Ch. J.
The county court decided that the plaintiffs could not recover upon their special counts against the defend*92ants as acceptors of the two bills ; but allowed them to recover on the money counts. This decision was doubtless made on the ground that the facts did not show a legal acceptance by the defendants, which there must be in order to make them liable as parties to the bills. If, however, the facts found by the county court, and placed upon the record, constitute a legal acceptance by the defendants, the judgment of the county court might be sustained on that ground, for it is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fisher v. BeckwithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
3Cited by4 opinions
- Scudder v. Union National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Sonoma Valley Bank v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Wright v. GuilmetteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1920
- Hendershott v. CalhounAppellate Court of Illinois · 1885