Legal Opinion

Hammond v. Chamberlin

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 15, 1854PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Assumpsit in four counts; in the first count, the plaintiff set forth, in substance, that at Barnard on the first day of April, 1846, Daniel and Hiram Aikens, by their promissory note of that date, for value, promised the defendant to pay him or order the sum of $200, on demand and interest annually, and afterwards, to wit, at Barnard, on the first day of January, 1847, the defendant indorsed said note to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff on the day last aforesaid, presented…

Read the full summary

Assumpsit in four counts; in the first count, the plaintiff set forth, in substance, that at Barnard on the first day of April, 1846, Daniel and Hiram Aikens, by their promissory note of that date, for value, promised the defendant to pay him or order the sum of $200, on demand and interest annually, and afterwards, to wit, at Barnard, on the first day of January, 1847, the defendant indorsed said note to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff on the day last aforesaid, presented said note to the said Daniel and Hiram Aikens, that they neglected and refused to pay the same, whereof the defendant…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Isecam J.

The note on which the plaintiff has declared, was executed in common form by Daniel and Hiram Aikens, payable to the defendant or order on demand, and was afterwards transferred to the plaintiff under the following written guaranty: “ I hereby guarantee this note good until January 1, 1850.” It is insisted that there is a variance between the several counts in the declaration and the legal liability arising from this obligation. On this question it becomes necessary to determine the legal effect of the contract or guaranty, placed on the back…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Evans v. BellTexas Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Weil v. SchwartzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
  3. Bull v. BlissSupreme Court of Vermont · 1857
  4. Cowles v. PeckSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1887
  5. Stackpole v. Dakota Loan & Trust Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1897

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API