Chapman v. Eddy
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, dated Dec. 11th, 1835, for $30,00, payable in two years from date, with interest. Plea, non-assumpsit, and trial by jury. On the trial in the county court, the execution of the note was admitted.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, dated Dec. 11th, 1835, for $30,00, payable in two years from date, with interest. Plea, non-assumpsit, and trial by jury. On the trial in the county court, the execution of the note was admitted. It was proved by the defendant, that the note was given for an undivided share of a pew, in Bristol meeting-house, sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, on the day of the execution of the note, and that the plaintiff agreed and promised, on the execution.of said note, to execute and deliver a deed of said undivided part of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
Were the respective promises of these parties mutual, independent promises, each constituting the consideration for the other, or were they dependent, and the performance of the one a condition precedent and consideration for the other ?
I. Had this whole contract been included in one instrument, there might have been some ground for insisting that the execution of the deed by the plaintiff was to precede the defendant’s liability to pay. But when each party takes a separate instrument to secure the undertaking of the other, it is conclusive…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Vanstrum v. LiljengrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Tronson v. Colby UniversityNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Brinkley v. BethelTennessee Supreme Court · 1872
- Brinkley v. BethelTennessee Supreme Court · 1872
- Brinkley v. BethelTennessee Supreme Court · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.