Goss v. Barker & Haight
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. The plaintiff declared against the defendants in these words:— “ For that whereas, heretofore, to wit, on the eleventh day of ‘ March, A. D. 1846, to wit, at Middlesex, in the county of Wash- ‘ ington, one John Diamond entered into a certain contract with the ‘ said Barker & Haight, whereby the said John became obligated ‘ to the said Barker & Haight to execute, construct and finish, on ‘ or before the first day of July, A. D. 1S47, in every respect in the ‘ most…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The plaintiff declared against the defendants in these words:— “ For that whereas, heretofore, to wit, on the eleventh day of ‘ March, A. D. 1846, to wit, at Middlesex, in the county of Wash- ‘ ington, one John Diamond entered into a certain contract with the ‘ said Barker & Haight, whereby the said John became obligated ‘ to the said Barker & Haight to execute, construct and finish, on ‘ or before the first day of July, A. D. 1S47, in every respect in the ‘ most substantial and workmanlike manner, and to the satisfaction ‘ and acceptance of the engineer of the Vermont Central Rail…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
The only- question much urged, in the argument of this case, is, whether the contract declared upon is a bill of exchange, and may be declared upon as such. We feel very certain, that upon this point the case is clearly with the defendant. A contract, although payable in money, if its obligation depend upon any contingency, even as to the amount ultimately due, cannot be regarded either as a promissory note, or bill, so as to be strictly negotiable. This principle is too familiar, and too elementary, to require to be substantiated by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Moar v. WrightSupreme Court of Vermont · 1826
- Hodges v. EastmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- Massie v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Dewey v. WashburnSupreme Court of Vermont · 1840