Pope v. Stacy
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. The writ was a summons to the defendant “to answer unto Samuel M. Pope, of Burlington aforesaid, administrator upon the estate of Ebenezer T. Englesby, late of Burlington aforesaid deceased, as by said letters of administration ready in court to be produced will more fully appear; in a plea of the case, for that whereas, the defendant at Burlington, on the 10th day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-ninej did make, execute…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The writ was a summons to the defendant “to answer unto Samuel M. Pope, of Burlington aforesaid, administrator upon the estate of Ebenezer T. Englesby, late of Burlington aforesaid deceased, as by said letters of administration ready in court to be produced will more fully appear; in a plea of the case, for that whereas, the defendant at Burlington, on the 10th day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-ninej did make, execute and deliver to said Ebenezer T. Englesby, in his life-time, a certain note in writing, commonly called a promissory note,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bedeield, Ch. J.
In this case the questions arise upon a demurrer to the declaration. And, first, it is objected, that it is not alleged that the plaintiff sues as administrator. The allegation is, that the defendant should answer to the plaintiff, administrator upon the estate, &c.; and, in the second count, that the defendant promised the plaintiff, such administrator as aforesaid. We know that some of the cases have held that such averments are not sufficient to show that the plaintiff sues as administrator, and therefore, that counts in this form,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Giguere, Admr. v. RosselotSupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
- Bates v. SabinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Trask v. KarrickSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Spear's Admr. v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Vermont · 1912