Adams v. Clarke
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, on a warranty contained in the following contract, — ‘New York July 30, 1828. Three years after date ‘ I promise to pay Thomas Clarke or order two hundred dol- ‘ lars, value received, with interest from date at six per cent. ‘ Samuel Hofeman. ' ‘ I have this day sold the note of which the above is a co- ‘ py to,, Charles Adams, to be collected for his own use and ‘ benefit, and at his own expense, and I warrant that said HofF- ‘ man has nothing to file in against-…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a warranty contained in the following contract, — ‘New York July 30, 1828. Three years after date ‘ I promise to pay Thomas Clarke or order two hundred dol- ‘ lars, value received, with interest from date at six per cent. ‘ Samuel Hofeman. ' ‘ I have this day sold the note of which the above is a co- ‘ py to,, Charles Adams, to be collected for his own use and ‘ benefit, and at his own expense, and I warrant that said HofF- ‘ man has nothing to file in against- it.' Burlington, January 14, 1829. ‘Thomas Clarke.’ The breach assigned in the declaration is as follows ;— ‘ Yet the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
This action is assumpsit on a guaranty, .to which there is a plea of the statute of limitations. The action was commenced July 6, 1836. The question is, at what time the cause of action accrued on the contract of *13guaranty, and this depends on the construction to be given to the contract, and no aid is to be derived from the declaration in giving the construction.
On the 30th July, 1828, Samuel Hoffman executed a note to the present defendant, payable to him, or order, three years after date, and on the 14th of Jan., A. D. 1829, the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Edelen v. First National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1921