Hicks v. Cottrill
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit in four counts, viz: work and labor; for goods sold; for money paid; and for money had and received. Plea, general issue, and that the cause of action did not accrue within six years. The replication traverses the second plea.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit in four counts, viz: work and labor; for goods sold; for money paid; and for money had and received. Plea, general issue, and that the cause of action did not accrue within six years. The replication traverses the second plea. The plaintiffs specification, filed in the case, is as follows: “ To cash paid on claim due Boynton & Hyde, debt contracted “ by Hicks & Prescott, and assumed by Hicks & Cottrill, which “ debt, in the dissolution of the partnership of Hicks & Cottrill, Cot- “ trill promised to pay, . $265,51 “ Interest from November 1, 1844, when paid by Hicks.” The case was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
This was an action of assumpsit, in four counts, work and labor, goods sold, money paid, and money had and received. The case, in the County Court, was referred, by consent of parties. The pleas were the general issue, and statute of limitations, and the plaintiff’s specification was: “ To cash, paid on “¡claim due Boynton & Hyde, debt contracted by Hicks & Preston, “ and assumed by Hicks & Cottrill, and which debt, on the dissolu- “ tion of partnership of Hicks & Cottrill, Cottrill promised to pay, “ $265,51. Interest from November, 1844, when paid by Hicks.”
At the time the case…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clifford v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Eddy v. SpragueSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fitzsimons v. Richardson, Twigg & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1912
- McHugh v. PeckTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Gordon's Admr. v. HotchkissSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Beede v. Fraser & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1894