Bryant v. Edson
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on a note of hand of the following tenor: “$1456 67. Cambridge, Jan. 2d, 1834. “ For value received, we promise to pay Sylvanus Bryant, or’ order, fourteen hundred fifty-six dollars and 67 cents, in fifteen days from date. (Signed) REUBEN DAMAN) SYLVESTER EDSON.” The writ was prayed out against both signers, and bore date January 20th, 1834, and was served on Edson the morning of that day, and a non est inventus returned as to Daman.
Read the full summary
This was an action on a note of hand of the following tenor: “$1456 67. Cambridge, Jan. 2d, 1834. “ For value received, we promise to pay Sylvanus Bryant, or’ order, fourteen hundred fifty-six dollars and 67 cents, in fifteen days from date. (Signed) REUBEN DAMAN) SYLVESTER EDSON.” The writ was prayed out against both signers, and bore date January 20th, 1834, and was served on Edson the morning of that day, and a non est inventus returned as to Daman. On the trial, the defendant insisted he was entitled to three days’ grace, which had not transpired at die commencement of the action. And he…
1Opinion of the Court
■The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collameb, J.
The obligation of a contract — the duties it implies, and the manner in which it is to be ‘performed, are fully acknowledged to be regulated by the lex loci contractus; while the manner of enforcing the remedy, in case of breach, constitutes no’ .part of the contract, and is regulated by the lex loci fori. This is a distinction apparently clear, but frequently difficult of practical application.
That days of grace are a part of the contract — a part of its obligations and privileges, and therefore to be regulated by the lex loci contractus,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Blodgett v. DurginSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Brown v. JonesIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Wright v. BartlettSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1862