Jarvis v. Barker's administrator
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an appeal from an allowance of commissioners on the estate of Eastus Barker. The declaration was in assumpsit on a promissory note, executed by Barker, and made payable to the plaintiff or order.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an allowance of commissioners on the estate of Eastus Barker. The declaration was in assumpsit on a promissory note, executed by Barker, and made payable to the plaintiff or order. It appeared, on the trial in the county court,' that the note in question had been taken by Chester Spencer, for his own benefit, and that a written contract had been entered into at the same time by Spencer, on the one part, and by Barker, the intestate, and Jaazaniah Barrett, jun. on the other part, which contained certain conditions precedent, on the performance of which the validity of…
1Opinion of the Court
After argument,
Hutchinson, C. J.,
pronounced the opinion of the Court.— We will first enquire whether Spencer, the witness offered by the plaintiff, was correctly excluded from testifying ? It appears in the case, that the note was executed for the benefit of this witness, but made payable to Jarvis, the creditor, whose process the witness had served probably in hopes, that he would receive this note as new security for his debt. But there was a writing co-temporaneous with this note, containing a condition precedent to the validity of the note. The plaintiff, not being able to show this…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Edwards v. GoldingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847