Churchill v. Bradley
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit in common counts. Heard by the court, December Term, 1885, Tapt, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. It appeared that one James Brown, as principal, with E. K. Slack and the defendant as sureties, executed a promissory note for 8100, bearing .date the 29th day of July, 1884, and payable to the Woodstock National Bank in six months from date.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit in common counts. Heard by the court, December Term, 1885, Tapt, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. It appeared that one James Brown, as principal, with E. K. Slack and the defendant as sureties, executed a promissory note for 8100, bearing .date the 29th day of July, 1884, and payable to the Woodstock National Bank in six months from date. The note was passed by the said Brown to the bank, and by it discountéd at or about the time of its date for Brown, who had the whole avails. The note remained the property of the bank until September 15, 1884. At that time the principal…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Roavell, J.
Treating the bank note as paid as to the defendant, and him as -discharged therefrom, it certainly remained good in the hands of the plaintiff as against Brown, the principal; and this raises the question whether the surrender of it by the plaintiff to the defendant constituted a sufficient consideration to sustain the note in suit. We think it did.
*407It is fairly to be gathered from the case, that -when the. defendant signed the new note he was aware of all xthe facts connected with the plaintiff’s holdership of the old note, except the fact…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harrington v. WellsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1840
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bromley v. HawleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1887
- Simeon v. KlenzeMontana Supreme Court · 1923
- Deavitt v. RingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1904