Pomeroy v. Slade
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on a promissory note bearing date June 10, 1839, and payable two years after date to William Carr, or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff Nov. 25, 1841. The action was commenced Dec. 1, 1841. The execution of the note and indorsement having been conceded, the defendants offered testimony tending to show that, a few days after the note in suit became due, the said Carr proposed to the defendants, that, if they would pay another note which he then held…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note bearing date June 10, 1839, and payable two years after date to William Carr, or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff Nov. 25, 1841. The action was commenced Dec. 1, 1841. The execution of the note and indorsement having been conceded, the defendants offered testimony tending to show that, a few days after the note in suit became due, the said Carr proposed to the defendants, that, if they would pay another note which he then held against them, amounting to about two hundred and fifty dollars, and which was then due,' he would give time of payment on the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
The agreement to give further time upon the note now in suit, upon the consideration that the defendant would pay a given sum upon another note, then also due, is nudum pactum. It was doing no more, and indeed I may say less, than what the defendant was then under obligation to do, It is quite clear that a naked agreement, without consideration, cannot have the effect to postpone the right to-sue on a cause of action, then complete.
The objection, insisted upon in the county court, that the note in question was not the individual note of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bedford's Exr. v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1908
- Merrill v. PeaseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1879