Brainard v. Austin
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indebitatus Assumpsit, for money had and received. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury. On trial the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to prove, that, on the first of May, 1839', Apollos A. Buck purchased land of one Miner, for which he gave a note for $1015, payable to the Farmer’s Bank, of Orwell, in three months after date, and signed by the plaintiff as surety, — which note subsequently became the property of Seneca Austin; that soon after the note fell due…
Read the full summary
Indebitatus Assumpsit, for money had and received. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury. On trial the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to prove, that, on the first of May, 1839', Apollos A. Buck purchased land of one Miner, for which he gave a note for $1015, payable to the Farmer’s Bank, of Orwell, in three months after date, and signed by the plaintiff as surety, — which note subsequently became the property of Seneca Austin; that soon after the note fell due the defendant called upon Buck for payment of the note; that in November after this the defendant and Buck had a farther…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hebard, J.
The only question in the case is as- to the jurisdiction of the oounty court. The question of jurisdiction, under the provision of our statute, is one of some difficulty. The amount of the plaintiff’s claim is made the criterion, and yet that does not always determine it; for his claim may bejictitious, affording no reasonable ground *653of belief, that he will be entitled to recover it. It does not depend upon the amount that he actually recovers, — for repeated decisions have sustained the jurisdiction of the county court, when the plaintiff’s…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Scott v. MooreSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Miller v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865