Hodges v. Eastman
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced against the defendant and one Gleason, but no process was« served jupón the latter, nor did he become a party in court.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced against the defendant and one Gleason, but no process was« served jupón the latter, nor did he become a party in court. The declaration alleged, in substance, that the defendant and Gleason executed their promissory note to one Flagg, payable in grain at the plaintiff’s store in Clarendon; that Flagg, for a valuable consideration, assigned said -note to the plaintiff, of which the defendant and Gleason had notice; and, that in consideration of all this, they promised to pay to the plaintiff the contents of said note. The county court rendered a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
— It appears, by the bill of exceptions, that the plaintiff rested his case upon proof of the assignment of the note by Flagg to himself, notice thereof to the defendant, and his individual promise to make payment to the plaintiff. The evidence did not tend to show a joint promise to the plaintiff by the defendant and Gleason. It is clear, therefore, that without the aid of the statute of A. D. 1835, this defect in the proof must have defeated the action. Under that act, the failure to prove a joint promise was not, as a matter of course,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Chaffee v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882
- C. E. Johnson & Co. v. MarshSupreme Court of Vermont · 1940
- Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. HerveyIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Downer v. TuckerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Royce v. NyeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.