Hyde v. County of Franklin
Supreme Court of Vermont
Oounty orders not negotiable. Assumesit for the recovery of the amount due on three orders drawn by the judges of the county court of the county of Franklin upon the treasurer of said county. One of these orders was given to and made payable directly to the plaintiffs; one of the others was given to and made payable to the order of Lewis II.
Read the full summary
Oounty orders not negotiable. Assumesit for the recovery of the amount due on three orders drawn by the judges of the county court of the county of Franklin upon the treasurer of said county. One of these orders was given to and made payable directly to the plaintiffs; one of the others was given to and made payable to the order of Lewis II. Beals, by whom it was endorsed and delivered to the plaintiffs; and the other was made payable to "William C. Wilson or bearer, by whom it was transferred to the plaintiffs. In reference to the first of these orders substantially the same facts were shown…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
The more important questions raised on this bill of exceptions have been argued and decided at the present term of this court, in two other cases against the county of Franklin, and nothing need be added to what has been said in those cases. The present case presents a further question, and that is whether the order drawn by the judges of the county court upon the county treasurer payable to the order of Lewis H. Beals is negotiable, so as to enable the endorsee to maintain an action on it in his own name. At first I was inclined to think…
2Cited by5 opinions
- People ex rel. Hurd v. JohnsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- Clark v. Polk CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- Blaisdell & Barron v. School District No. 2Supreme Court of Vermont · 1899
- Town of Stowe v. County of LamoilleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1976
- Johnson v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1881