Carlton v. Coffin
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, dated Marcli 12, 1845, for $ 385.78, payable on demand, signed, “ For the Ludlow Woolen Mill, George S. Coffin, agent.” The defendants were described in the writ as “ formerly co-partners in the manufacturing business at Ludlow, under the firm and style oí the Ludlow Woolen Milll.” Plea, the general issue, and the statute of limitations; trial by the court, by agreemnt of the parties, May Term, 1855, — Underwood, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, dated Marcli 12, 1845, for $ 385.78, payable on demand, signed, “ For the Ludlow Woolen Mill, George S. Coffin, agent.” The defendants were described in the writ as “ formerly co-partners in the manufacturing business at Ludlow, under the firm and style oí the Ludlow Woolen Milll.” Plea, the general issue, and the statute of limitations; trial by the court, by agreemnt of the parties, May Term, 1855, — Underwood, J., presiding. The plaintiffs put into the case a copy of a deed, from Wm. Stur,gess and others to George S. Coffin and Shepherd Adams, dated 21st…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
The first question in the case is, had the county court competent testimony before them, tending to prove that Abraham Adams was one of the partners of the Ludlow Woolen Mill Company at the time of the execution of the note, which bears date the 12th of March, 1845. We see no objection to the admissibility of any of the evidence admitted by the county court. Its weight was entirely with that court. The evidence went to show that on *507the 16th day of December, 1843, all the defendants in this suit, including Abraham Adams, who styled themselves…
2Cited by4 opinions
- C. E. Johnson & Co. v. MarshSupreme Court of Vermont · 1940
- Mix v. ShattuckSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878
- Goodwin v. BuzzellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
- Church v. FrenchSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882