Clark v. Snow
Supreme Court of Vermont
GeNeral Assumpsit. Heard on a referee’s report, September Term, 1886, Washington County, Powers, J., presiding. Judgment on the report for the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion. . In this State it is well settled that an action at law may be maintained on a lost promissory note, not negotiable or payable to order, but not negotiated. ’ Lazell v. Lazell, 12 Yt. 443; HojpMns v. Adams, 20 Yt. 407; Hough v. Burton, 20 Yt. ' 455. Adams w.
Read the full summary
GeNeral Assumpsit. Heard on a referee’s report, September Term, 1886, Washington County, Powers, J., presiding. Judgment on the report for the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion. . In this State it is well settled that an action at law may be maintained on a lost promissory note, not negotiable or payable to order, but not negotiated. ’ Lazell v. Lazell, 12 Yt. 443; HojpMns v. Adams, 20 Yt. 407; Hough v. Burton, 20 Yt. ' 455. Adams w. Bdmunds, 55 Yt. 352, is not in conflict with this principle but recognizes it. Section 2005, R. L., does not apply, as this suit is against the-…
1Opinion of the Court
■The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, Ch. J.
The referee finds, among other facts, that the note on which plaintiff claims to recover in this action was lost, that it had never been negotiated, and that it has never been paid. The note was payable to the order of J. W. Clark, was lost soon after its execution, and a copy of it was made and was proved before the referee. The note was not shown to have been destroyed.
The only question that arises for our consideration is, whether the plaintiff’s remedy is at law, or whether he must go to equity.
It is said that ‘ ‘ the mere loss of an…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lazell v. LazellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1840
- Hopkins v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Adams v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1911