Bank of Rutland v. Thrall
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on note, dated the 29th day of August, A. D. 1831, and signed by Thomas Hooker, Charles K. Williams and Reuben R. Thrall, for $1000, payable in three months from date. Plea, non-assumpsit — issue to the court. On the trial of the cause, the defendant offered evidence tending to prove that Thomas Hooker was the principal debtor, ancj Charles K. Williams and this defendant signed as surety . ° J for Hooker, which was known to the directors.
Read the full summary
This was an action on note, dated the 29th day of August, A. D. 1831, and signed by Thomas Hooker, Charles K. Williams and Reuben R. Thrall, for $1000, payable in three months from date. Plea, non-assumpsit — issue to the court. On the trial of the cause, the defendant offered evidence tending to prove that Thomas Hooker was the principal debtor, ancj Charles K. Williams and this defendant signed as surety . ° J for Hooker, which was known to the directors. That the directors suffered the note to remain unpaid from the twenty-ninth day of November, A. D. 1831, to the twenty-seventh day of…
1Opinion of the Court
After argument, the opinion of the court was delivered by
Phelps, J.
— It is very clear, that in order to sustain this defence, it becomes necessary to make out, either that the plaintiffs have, received actual satisfaction of their claim, or that they have proceeded so far, or in such a manner, in the process of collection against Hooker, the principal debtor, as to be equitably estopped from pursuing the defendant in this action. The case is not very explicit as to the ultimate disposition of the money levied by the officer, Page. Whether the whole amount passed into the hands of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Town of Rutland v. PaigeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852