Bailey v. Danforth
Supreme Court of Vermont
Heard on the report of a referee, at the September Term, 1877. Royce, J., presiding, rendered judgment, pro forma, on the report for the plaintiff. The referee found: . . . . The plaintiff declared upon a promissory note ; plea, Statute of Limitation ; replication, part payment. No question was made about the execution and delivery of the note to one Phillip Bailey, in his lifetime; and he afterwards gave the note' to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Heard on the report of a referee, at the September Term, 1877. Royce, J., presiding, rendered judgment, pro forma, on the report for the plaintiff. The referee found: . . . . The plaintiff declared upon a promissory note ; plea, Statute of Limitation ; replication, part payment. No question was made about the execution and delivery of the note to one Phillip Bailey, in his lifetime; and he afterwards gave the note' to the plaintiff. There was no testimony in the case tending to show in whose handwriting the indorsement of three dollars on this note, under date of October 22d, 1870, was made,…
1Opinion of the Court
*506The opinion of the court was delivered by
Ross, J.
The question submitted to the County Court by the referee is, whether the indorsement upon the note can legally be considered as evidence tending to show part payment upon the note, though not of itself sufficient evidence of such payment. If it can be legally considered as having such tendency, he finds the bar of the Statute of Limitations removed, and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover; but if it cannot be legally considered as having such tendency, he finds that the defendant is entitled to recover. The statute, Gen. Sts. c. 63, s.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Lawrence v. Graves' EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1888
- Fletcher v. BrainerdSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- McDowell v. McDowell's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- Putnam v. SwainSupreme Court of Vermont · 1929
- Bennett v. DelphiaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925