Wilbur v. Prior
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Plea, the general issue with notice of special matter. Trial by jury at the April term, 1892, Chittenden county, Taft, J., presiding. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff; to which the defendant excepted. The opinion states the case. A contemporaneous agreement not to collect the note could not be shown. Conner v. Car-fienter, 28 Vt. 237 and note ; Morse v. Low, 44 Vt. 561; Gillett v. Ballou, 29 Vt. 296.
1Opinion of the CourtMunson, J.
The defendant conceded the execution of the note in suit, but claimed that it was without consideration and procured by fraud. The court directed a verdict on the ground that there was no evidence tending to show that the note was fraudulently procured, and the defendant excepted to the action of the court in directing a verdict. In considering the correctness of this ruling we are to assume the truth of that part of the testimony which tends to support the defendant’s claim.
The defendant was one of three sureties on E. D. Butler’s bond as constable of Underhill for the year 1882. During that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Conner v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Gillett v. BallouSupreme Court of Vermont · 1857
3Cited by8 opinions
- Harponola Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1923
- State v. BarrettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1970
- Town of Grand Isle v. KinneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1898
- Holbrook Grocery Co. v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Vermont · 1923
- Kinnear & Gager Manufacturing Co. v. MinerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.