Hodges v. Griggs
Supreme Court of Vermont
[In Chancery.] Appeal from the court of chancery. The orator alleged, in his bill, that the defendant Griggs, on the 20th of April, 1833, having purchased a fafm of one Henry A. Allen, executed to him his promissory note for $370.77, as part of the consideration, which was taade subject to a condition, that Griggs should retain that amount 0f the purchase monéy as security agairtst a claim which the defendant Thrall had upon said farm by an attachment in his favor against…
Read the full summary
[In Chancery.] Appeal from the court of chancery. The orator alleged, in his bill, that the defendant Griggs, on the 20th of April, 1833, having purchased a fafm of one Henry A. Allen, executed to him his promissory note for $370.77, as part of the consideration, which was taade subject to a condition, that Griggs should retain that amount 0f the purchase monéy as security agairtst a claim which the defendant Thrall had upon said farm by an attachment in his favor against Oliver Allen, a former owner of the farm, and that Griggs should not be required to pay that amount, until the land should…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
This farm being, at the time it was sold by Henry A. Allen to Griggs, incumbered by Mr. Thrall’s attachment against Oliver Allen, it was provided in the note now in question, that Griggs should retain that amount of the purchase money for the farm in his own hands, as a security against Thrall’s attachment; *282and Griggs was not to pay the note, until he was secured against Thrall’s claim to his satisfaction, or until the land was freed from the attachment. The bill is taken as confessed by Griggs; and Thrall, in his answer, sets up his claim…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Eldridge v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
- King v. . TownshendNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Rooney v. SouleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873