Bank of Montpelier v. Russell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Declaration on promissory note. Asstoipsit. By the "writ and declaration the defendants were notified to appear, &c., “ then and there, in said court, to answer to “ the Bank of Montpelier, at Montpelier, in the county of Washington, in a plea of the case for that the defendants, by their “ promissory note, dated at Richmond, May 12th, 1853, for value “ received, jointly and severally promised the President, Directors “ and Company of the Bank of Montpelier, to pay them the…
Read the full summary
Declaration on promissory note. Asstoipsit. By the "writ and declaration the defendants were notified to appear, &c., “ then and there, in said court, to answer to “ the Bank of Montpelier, at Montpelier, in the county of Washington, in a plea of the case for that the defendants, by their “ promissory note, dated at Richmond, May 12th, 1853, for value “ received, jointly and severally promised the President, Directors “ and Company of the Bank of Montpelier, to pay them the sum “ of five hundred and seventy dollars, in three months from date, — ■ “ which is unpaid, though demanded.” To this…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court, Redfield, Ch. J.
The only question raised in the present case is in regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ declaration, upon general demurrer. It is in a brief form, which has been in very general use in the state, for many years, and always regarded, by this court as sufficient, in the ordinary case of natural persons being parties to the suit. An attempt is made to show that the plaintiff is not properly described, but we see no difficulty upon that ground.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Friend v. PitmanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1898