President, Directors & Co. of Claremont Bank v. Wood
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note of the following tenor. “Claremont, June 12,1831. “ For value received, we, each as principal, jointly and “ severally promise to pay the President, Directors and Com- “ pany of the Claremont Bank, two thousand dollars, in nine- “ ty days, with customary grace. (Signed,) Nathan Wood, Joña. Wheelock. Eben W. Judd.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note of the following tenor. “Claremont, June 12,1831. “ For value received, we, each as principal, jointly and “ severally promise to pay the President, Directors and Com- “ pany of the Claremont Bank, two thousand dollars, in nine- “ ty days, with customary grace. (Signed,) Nathan Wood, Joña. Wheelock. Eben W. Judd.” It appeared from the evidence, on the trial in the county court, that the note in suit was discounted for the benefit of the two first signers and that Judd was, as between himself and his co-signers, but a surety for them, of which the plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Royce, J.
-It appears to be the settled law of New Hamps shire, that a co-signer of a promissory note, in common form, shall be allowed to prove that, as between himself and the other signers, he was but a surety, and that this fact, if sea? sonably made known to thp creditor, will entitle such a party to avail himself of all the established rights of a surety. And as the note now in question was expressly made payable ip that state, we are bound to give effect to this law, go far §§ if shall appear to be applicable.
Looking to the tendency of the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Clifford v. West Hartford Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1931
- Arbuckle v. TempletonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- People's Bank v. PearsonsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- McMillan v. ParkellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. RathboneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.