Wright v. Jacobs
Supreme Court of Vermont
IN ERROR. ERROR, to reverse a judgment of Washington county court, rendered at their September term, 1825. The plaintiff in the Court below, declared against the defendant, on two promissory notes, made payable to him or order, averring in his declaration, that the notes were lost. There was also a count for money had and received.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. ERROR, to reverse a judgment of Washington county court, rendered at their September term, 1825. The plaintiff in the Court below, declared against the defendant, on two promissory notes, made payable to him or order, averring in his declaration, that the notes were lost. There was also a count for money had and received. Plea, 1. The general issue. 2. Non assumpsit infra sex annos; to which last plea, the plaintiff replied, that the cause of action did accrue within six years, &c. and issue joined to the country. On the trial, the counsel for the plaintiff offered the plaintiff’s…
1Opinion of the Court
Their opinion was delivered by
Skinner, Ch. J.
The first question presented in this case was fully considered in the case of Penjield vs. Cook, and the principle was there settled, that the party in a suit cannot testify to the loss of an instrument, or paper, upon which the action is founded. That was the case of a bond, or specialty, but the principle which governed the decision in that case, must apply with equal force to the present. Indeed, this being the case of a negotiable note, made payable to the plaintiff, or bearer, according to the law, as it is now understood, and settled in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Adams v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883