Hatch v. Hyde
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and a special plea in bar, which special plea was, in substance, as follows: ‘ That the aforesaid note, on which said action is brought, 4 was given for a certain horse then and there sold by the £ plaintiff to the defendants, and on no other consideration 4 whatsoever; and that said horse, being at that time lame 4 and otherwise diseased, and it being uncertain whether he 4 would again become sound, or…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and a special plea in bar, which special plea was, in substance, as follows: ‘ That the aforesaid note, on which said action is brought, 4 was given for a certain horse then and there sold by the £ plaintiff to the defendants, and on no other consideration 4 whatsoever; and that said horse, being at that time lame 4 and otherwise diseased, and it being uncertain whether he 4 would again become sound, or would become useless or £ die, by reason of said lameness or disease, it was then and £ there verbally agreed, to wit, on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
The plea in bar sets up a parol agreement contemporaneous with the giving of the note, and inconsistent with the one expressed in the note. The horse, though lame and diseased, was clearly a sufficient consideration for the note, and no fraud is pretended. The note then, being upon sufficient consideration, and absolute upon the face of it, cannot, by parol evidence, be converted into one payable upon a contingency. Bentley v. Bradley, 8 Vt. R. 243. Isaacs v. Elkins, 11 Vt. R. 679. As the agreement, set up *28in the plea in bar, if made upon…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Germania Bank of Minneapolis v. OsborneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- University of Vermont v. Baxter's estateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869