Russell v. Buck
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, upon a written guaranty, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, of the following tenor: ‘ Whereas, Buck & Bailey indorsed a note, made by ‘ Amasa B. Gibson and Reuben Gibson, for nineteen hundred ‘ and fifteen dollars and thirteen cents, dated June 26, 1828, ‘and payable one year from date, with interest, which note ‘ is now the property of Joseph Russell.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon a written guaranty, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, of the following tenor: ‘ Whereas, Buck & Bailey indorsed a note, made by ‘ Amasa B. Gibson and Reuben Gibson, for nineteen hundred ‘ and fifteen dollars and thirteen cents, dated June 26, 1828, ‘and payable one year from date, with interest, which note ‘ is now the property of Joseph Russell. Now, therefore, I ‘ hereby guaranty to said Russell the collection and payment ‘ of the above described note, and engage to pay the same ‘ on condition that said Russell does not call on me for pay- ‘ ment till the first day…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
Under the charge of the court, the jury must have found that the defendant, at the time of giving the guaranty, had no knowledge of the existence of the facts, which would have defeated an action against the indorsers of the note. But it is said, in argument, that he was bound to give the plaintiff timely notice, after he was advised of the facts, of his intention to avoid- the contract, and that, not having so done, it amounts to a waiver of that matter *157of defence. Is this so ? The law never requires a useless act to be performed.
In the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wardell v. HowellNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Rosa v. BrothersonNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by2 opinions
- Huse v. HamblinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Nichols' Ex'r v. PorterWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1867