Austin v. Birchard
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon three promissory notes, dated Detroit, Michigan, January 6th, 1855, signed by the defendant and others, and payable to the plaintiff or order in one day after date. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, at the June Term, 1858,— Bennett, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon three promissory notes, dated Detroit, Michigan, January 6th, 1855, signed by the defendant and others, and payable to the plaintiff or order in one day after date. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, at the June Term, 1858,— Bennett, J., presiding. On trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence the three notes declared on, and proved their execution by the defendant and the other signers, and also gave evidence tending to show that they were taken for a debt previously due the Farmer’s Bank of Orwell, from Smith Dwight & Co., who were among the signers of the notes.…
1Opinion of the CourtAmdis, J.
The question in this case is, may one who is the owner and holder of a negotiable promissory note bring a suit thereon in the name of another person who at the time the suit is brought is neither the owner nor holder of the note, who has not the actual possession of the note, nor any interest in it, but who consents that his name may be used as plaintiff by the true owner and holder, and who, being such nominal plaintiff, produces the note on trial.
It is not questioned but that the real owner and holder of a note payable to bearer, may deliver the note to another for the purpose of having him…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gage v. KendallNew York Supreme Court · 1836
3Cited by3 opinions
- Newberry v. TrowbridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Bank of Middlebury v. BinghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
- Odland v. HamrickWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1944