Little v. Hale
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a trustee process. The writ was served on the 22d of March, 1837. Upon the trial in the county court, the following facts were proved from Hale’s disclosure, and by other evidence, viz.; that Hale executed to Carlton a note for one hundred sixty-two dollars and fifty cents, dated February 24, 1837, payable to Carlton or order, in the month of June, 1837. In May, 1837, before the note became due, Hale was notified by Chester Hutchins of Bath, New Hampshire, that the…
Read the full summary
This was a trustee process. The writ was served on the 22d of March, 1837. Upon the trial in the county court, the following facts were proved from Hale’s disclosure, and by other evidence, viz.; that Hale executed to Carlton a note for one hundred sixty-two dollars and fifty cents, dated February 24, 1837, payable to Carlton or order, in the month of June, 1837. In May, 1837, before the note became due, Hale was notified by Chester Hutchins of Bath, New Hampshire, that the note had been indorsed and transferred to him. In August or September, 1837, Hale was sued in New Hampshire, by…
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, C. J.
The question is, whether Hale is the trustee of Carleton. The same question was presented in Bennington county, in the case of Hinsdell v. Safford and others, trustees of Whiton, ante, 309; where it was held that the maker of a negotiable note could not be adjudged trustee of the payee, when the note was indorsed and notice given before it fell due, although the trustee process may have been served before the indorsement and notice. The decision in that case renders it unnecessary to repeat the views which the court then expressed. On the authority of that case, the judgment of the county…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ayott v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868