Haven v. Hobbs
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated Nov. 25, 1819. It bad been tried by the County Court on the general issue, and a verdict found by the jury for the plaintiff; and the case now came before the court upon exceptions taken by the defendant on the trial.
Read the full summary
This was an action of Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated Nov. 25, 1819. It bad been tried by the County Court on the general issue, and a verdict found by the jury for the plaintiff; and the case now came before the court upon exceptions taken by the defendant on the trial. The bill of exceptions, stated, that “To prove the execution- of the note, the counsel for the plaintiff offered evidence that the payee, by the direction of the payor, signed the payor’s name to the note; to the admission of which the counsel for the defendant objected. The objection was overruled by the court, nnd the…
1Opinion of the CourtTurnee, J.
This casé presents three questions. First, whether Hobb’s note was invalidated by the fact that his name was signed by the payee, at his request. Second, whether it was Void for want of consideration; and third, whether it is discharged by the receipt.
As to the first question, by the common law, the payor of a note may unquestionably bind himself by a note to which his signature is affixed by a third person at his request. The person who thus affixes the signature, is regarded not so much an agent, as an instrument used by the payor to perform the act by which he binds himself. If this act is…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bellows v. WeeksSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869
- Brown v. MansurSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Meyer v. MeyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Northwestern Savings Bank v. International BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Hoit v. CooperSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860