Ellsworth v. Fogg
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. The writ was not served upon the defendant Fogg, and there was no appearance by him. The defendant Harvey pleaded the general issue, and the case was tried by jury, at the June Term, 1861, Poland, Ch. J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The writ was not served upon the defendant Fogg, and there was no appearance by him. The defendant Harvey pleaded the general issue, and the case was tried by jury, at the June Term, 1861, Poland, Ch. J., presiding. The plaintiff claimed to recover on five notes, all dated the 28th of February, 1857, one for $500, payable in one month, and four for $911.75 each, payable severally in three, six, nine, and twelve months from date, with interest annually, at the Suffolk Bank, Boston, signed by Fogg &, Harvey, and payable to the plaintiff or order. The plaintiff had not the notes in…
1Opinion of the CourtAldis, J.
I. Shattuck was apparently the owner of the botes. He had claimed to have an assignment of them, and had them in his possession. The notes were negotiable, and indorsed by the payee in blank. He claimed to have the full right to manage and control the notes, and Harvey had no knowledge that any other person had any claim to them. Nor had Harvey notice of anything that should awaken suspicion's or put him on inquiry.
The fact that Shattuck was an attorney by profession — so long as he did not appear to be acting as an attorney for any other person — was not a fa'ct to awaken suspicion, or…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Jaffray v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Williams v. BlumenthalWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- Bank v. ShookTennessee Supreme Court · 1898
- Slade v. MutrieMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Draper v. HittSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.