Stark Bank v. U. S. Pottery Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on three promissory notes, one for five thousand dollars, one for six hundred and eleven dollars and twenty-eight cents, and one for two thousand two hundred and forty dollars and thirty-eight cents. Plea, the general issue. No defence was made to the. two first notes.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on three promissory notes, one for five thousand dollars, one for six hundred and eleven dollars and twenty-eight cents, and one for two thousand two hundred and forty dollars and thirty-eight cents. Plea, the general issue. No defence was made to the. two first notes. As to the other, it appeared that in the fall of 1857 the defendant had been doing business for a number of years with the plaintiffs, and had borrowed money of them from time to time to a large amount, for the purpose of carrying on their business, under a guaranty to the plaintiffs signed by one Archer. In…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, J.
This action is against the defendant as maker of three promissory notes, dated at Bennington, February 15th, 1858. The defendant makes no defence to two of the notes, but denies its liability on the other, being the note for two thousand two. hundred and forty dollars and thirty-eight cents.
The first objection on the part of the defence, is that the treasurer who executed the note in behalf of the company, was not authorized thus to bind the defendant.
There can be no doubt of the authority of Gager, the treasurer, to execute notes in behalf of the company in the ordinary course of business,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. Page v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1876
- Cook v. American Tubing & Webbing Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1906
- Kirn v. Kraus Plumbing & Heating Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1919
- Hubbard v. New York, N. E. & W. Investment Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1882
- United States Rolling Stock Co. v. Atlantic & Great Western RailroadOhio Supreme Court · 1878