Meacham v. Dow
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note signed by the defendant and payable to one Burnham, or bearer. Plea, the general issue and trial by jury at the June Term, 1859, — Pieepoint, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note signed by the defendant and payable to one Burnham, or bearer. Plea, the general issue and trial by jury at the June Term, 1859, — Pieepoint, J., presiding. The testimony introduced by the defendant tended to show that Burnham was still the owner of the note, and that it was prosecuted by the plaintiff solely for his benefit; that the note was given upon the consideration that Burnham, who was a United States mail agent, and was contemplating resigning that office, agreed with the defendant to resign in the latter’s favor, and to use his influence, with the…
1Opinion of the CourtPoland, J.
If the plaintiff had shown himself the owner and bona fide holder of the note in suit, the defendant could not have defeated the action by showing a want of consideration, or that the consideration was illegal.
But the jury having found that the suit was prosecuted in the name of the plaintiff, for the benefit of Burnham, the payee, any defence that could be made to an action in his name, would be equally available in this.
By the contract of the parties, when the note was given, the-note was to be void unless the defendant succeeded in obtaining the office of mail agent, and this was evidenced…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Town of Thetford v. HubbardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Ferris v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wakefield v. VanTassellIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
- Brooks v. CooperSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1893
- Sauerhering v. RuepingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Basket v. MossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Basket v. . MossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.