Benton v. Holland
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. Heard on an agreed statement, June Term, 1885, Yeazey, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The facts in their legal effect were similar in both cases. In both the Statute of Limitations was a bar, unless the payments made by the assignee had interrupted its running.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Heard on an agreed statement, June Term, 1885, Yeazey, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The facts in their legal effect were similar in both cases. In both the Statute of Limitations was a bar, unless the payments made by the assignee had interrupted its running. The defendants were partners, and were adjudged insolvent debtors, August 20, 1877, on a creditor’s petition, by the court of insolvency for the district of New Haven, under the State Insolvent Act, approved November 28, 1876. Amos Wetherbee was chosen and appointed assignee, who took possession of the debtor’s…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Taft, J.
Assumpsit to recover the amount due on promissory notes. Plea, Statute of Limitations. The claims in suit are barred unless kept alive by payment made by an assignee in a proceeding in insolvency, which the plaintiff claims was invalid for the reason that it was had while the United States Bankruptcy Law was in force. It is conceded in argument that payment made by an assignee under valid proceedings is not such a payment as to interrupt the running of the statute as against the original debtor. The plaintiff claims that by reason of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ayer v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Thomas v. BrewerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Bowker v. HarrisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Goodwin v. BuzzellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
3Cited by2 opinions
- Union Stockyards National Bank of South Omaha v. MaikaWyoming Supreme Court · 1907
- Fletcher v. BrainerdSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903