Granite Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Parry & Jones
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on two promissory notes. No pleas were filed, ■and plaintiff had judgment at the March Term, 1910, Washington County, Butler, J. presiding. At the same term, on assessment of damages by the clerk, plaintiff presented two promissory notes signed by defendants, one for $750, dated June 14, 1908, and the other for $277. 89, dated October 14, 1908, both of which are renewals of notes for the same sums.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on two promissory notes. No pleas were filed, ■and plaintiff had judgment at the March Term, 1910, Washington County, Butler, J. presiding. At the same term, on assessment of damages by the clerk, plaintiff presented two promissory notes signed by defendants, one for $750, dated June 14, 1908, and the other for $277. 89, dated October 14, 1908, both of which are renewals of notes for the same sums. The original notes were executed by defendants to the Empire Granite Company for certain of its stock, and by it immediately indorsed to plaintiff for their full face value in money.…
1Opinion of the CourtMunson, J.
The judgment was a conclusive determination that the defendants had promised the payments evidenced by the notes. The defendants’ offer was inconsistent with the terms of payment as thus determined. It was not an offer to reduce the damages by showing payments under the contract as adjudged, but an offer to show a separate writing by virtue of which the damages would be less. The notes which constituted the cause of action determined the extent of the recovery, and reduced the process of assessment to a mere computation. Sweet v. McDaniels, 39 Vt. 272; Third National Bank v. Dorset Marble…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bradley v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Sweet v. McDanielsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1867
- Third National Bank v. Dorset Marble Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- Parry & Jones v. Empire Granite Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1916