Wright v. Burroughs
Supreme Court of Vermont
Special assumpsit for the amount of a promissory note. Heard ■at the December Term, 1889, Munson, J., presiding, upon general demurrer to the new declaration, which was, pro forma, overruled. The defendant excepts. The plaintiffs were husband and wife, and the note upon which a recovery was sought was made payable to the wife.
Read the full summary
Special assumpsit for the amount of a promissory note. Heard ■at the December Term, 1889, Munson, J., presiding, upon general demurrer to the new declaration, which was, pro forma, overruled. The defendant excepts. The plaintiffs were husband and wife, and the note upon which a recovery was sought was made payable to the wife. The defendant demurred to the original declaration of the plaintiffs, for that, upon the facts therein alleged, the wife ought to . have sued alone, and it was so held. 61 Yt. 890. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed the following new declaration : “ Whereas the said…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rowell, J.
If the husband has a legal interest in the note by virtue of the marital relation, he may join his wife in a suit ¡upon it. Otherwise he cannot join, but the wife must sue alone,
■ being empowered to do so by the statute. So held when this ■case was hero before. 61 Vt. 390.
It is conceded that the statute of 1884 cannot take away any right the husband had to reduce this note to his possession, but -it is claimed that he never had any such right; first, because, being for value. received and payable to the wife, it imports, uprima facie, that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mary J. v. Solon BurroughsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1889
- Bartlett v. BoydSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
- Driggs v. AbbottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Stearns v. Administrator of StearnsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Perry v. WheelockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1876