Kingsbury v. Butler
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note dated June 4, 1816, payable “when demanded.” Plea, that the cause of action did not accrue within six years before the commencement of the suit.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note dated June 4, 1816, payable “when demanded.” Plea, that the cause of action did not accrue within six years before the commencement of the suit. On trial in the county court, it appeared the plaintiff had demanded payment of the defendant on the 10th day @f July, 1829, a short time before the action was commenced, and; the plaintiff contended that the cause of action did not accrue till such demand was made; and with a view of rebutting any .presumption that a demand of payment had been made previously, he offered to prove that the note had…
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
It would seem as though there was no question-in-this case, except whether a note payable ivhen demanded requires any thing on the part of the payee more than a note payable on demand. There may be a distinction, and, as has been facetiously remarked, the law is a science ofdistinctions ; but if there is one, it is so subtle as to escape our observation. If the expressions mean the same thing, both of the questions which have been presented here, have been settled so long, and are so well recognized by every reporter and every elementary writer, that it is altogether useless to enquire,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Herrick v. . WoolvertonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Citizens Bank of Pleasantville v. TaylorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Darby v. DarbySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1908
- Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Ware v. HeweySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1869
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.