Clark v. Stoughton
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. The defendants were attached to answer unto the plaintiff “ in a plea of the case, For that the said Declancy Stough- ‘ ton, Jr., Frederick Hazen, Henry Brayton and Albert S. Mat- * thews, all of Alburgh aforesaid, at Alburgh, on the 26th day ‘ of June, A. D. 1841, by their note under their hands of that date, ‘ for value received, jointly and severally promised to pay the said ‘ William A. Clark $226,17 by the 1st day of May, 1842, with inter- ‘ est, and then and…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The defendants were attached to answer unto the plaintiff “ in a plea of the case, For that the said Declancy Stough- ‘ ton, Jr., Frederick Hazen, Henry Brayton and Albert S. Mat- * thews, all of Alburgh aforesaid, at Alburgh, on the 26th day ‘ of June, A. D. 1841, by their note under their hands of that date, ‘ for value received, jointly and severally promised to pay the said ‘ William A. Clark $226,17 by the 1st day of May, 1842, with inter- ‘ est, and then and there, to wit, on the 26th day of June, 1841, delivered said note to the plaintiff. Yet the said defendants, not re~ ‘…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
It would doubtless be going too far to assert, that the Arabic numerical figures in universal use, are not, to some purposes, a part of the English language. To similar purposes they are also part of most other languages, throughout the civilized world. Of themselves, however, they signify mere numbers, and words, or signs, are therefore necessary to predicate the number signified of any particular subject, or thing. And how far a mark, point, or other sign, prefixed, or added to the figures, to show the application and sense of the number…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. HodgedenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1831
3Cited by3 opinions
- Northrop v. SanbornSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- State v. PaddockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
- State v. Town of JerichoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868