Boutwell v. Mason
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated December 31, 1836, given by the defendants to the plaintiff for $113,63, payable on demand, with interest annually, on the back of which note, under date of February 23, 1838, was an indorsement of $40. Plea, the general issue. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, and came by appeal, to the county court.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated December 31, 1836, given by the defendants to the plaintiff for $113,63, payable on demand, with interest annually, on the back of which note, under date of February 23, 1838, was an indorsement of $40. Plea, the general issue. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, and came by appeal, to the county court. Upon the trial in the county court, the defendant,with a view to show that the county court had no appellate jurisdiction of the case, proved that, at the time of plaintiff’s receiving the said sum of $40, he held the note declared…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redeield, J.
— It is a well settled rule of law, that the party paying money,, has the right to direct the application of it. Goddard v. Cox, 2 Strange, 1194. 13 Petersdoff’s Ab. 246. 2 Saund. R. 415, note b., and cases cited. This re-suits from one of the most obvious principles of human action, that a free agent may annex such conditions to an offer as he sees fit; and he who accepts the offer, takes it subject to those conditions. It is true this appropriation must be made at the time of payment, and if not done, the creditor may make such…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McDonald v. PlaceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Roakes v. Bailey & NewcombSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Herren v. CampbellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Clarke v. Omaha & Southwestern RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1876