Burgess v. Nash
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Plea the general issue, with notice of special matter. . Trial by jury at the December term, 1892, Bennington county, Start, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The note was for one hundred and seventy-five dollars, was signed by the defendant, made payable to the order of Patrick Nash and endorsed by Patrick Nash and H. E. Burgess.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Plea the general issue, with notice of special matter. . Trial by jury at the December term, 1892, Bennington county, Start, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The note was for one hundred and seventy-five dollars, was signed by the defendant, made payable to the order of Patrick Nash and endorsed by Patrick Nash and H. E. Burgess. The note in suit was given in renewal of another note for two hundred dollars between the same parties, which had been originally given by the defendant in payment of an interest in a…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The only question presented in this case is whether the defendant can make the defence of par*46tial failure of consideration, under the provisions of R. L., s. 911. As held in Hoyt v. McNally, 66 Vt. 38, heard and decided this terra, the plaintiff is not an original party to the note in suit within the meaning of the statute, and, therefore, this defence cannot be interposed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hoyt v. McNallySupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Craigue v. HallSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901
- Russell v. RoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1900