Hackett v. Kendall
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note for $23,50, dated September 30, 1841, payable to Mehitable M. Booth, or bearer, in one year from date, with interest. Pleas, the general issue and the statute of limitations, and trial by jury, December Term, 1850, — Pierpoint, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note for $23,50, dated September 30, 1841, payable to Mehitable M. Booth, or bearer, in one year from date, with interest. Pleas, the general issue and the statute of limitations, and trial by jury, December Term, 1850, — Pierpoint, J., presiding. On trial, the plaintiff, after giving in evidence the note declared upon, gave evidence tending to prove, that in the spring of 1844 the defendant, who had a family and kept house in Granville, Vermont, discontinued house keeping, and his wife went, with her child, to live with her father in Granville, and the defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfijeld, J.
The first question arising in the case is, whethér the defendant’s absence from the state, as stated in the bill of exceptions, was of such a character, as properly to be deducted in computing the time of the statute of limitations. We understand from the argument, although the date of the writ is not copied into the case furnished to the court, that if either absence of the defendant be deducted, it will be sufficient to remove the bar. It will therefore only be necessary to examine the latter; as, if this be not sufficient, the other…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Town of Middletown v. Town of PoultneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
3Cited by15 opinions
- Pells v. SnellIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Farrow v. FarrowSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Venable v. PauldingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1873
- Harrison's Administrator v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- Trask v. KarrickSupreme Court of Vermont · 1920
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.