Richmond v. Standclift
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated March 28, 1838, given by the defendants for $85.00, to the plaintiff, or order, payable on demand, with interest, for value received. Plea, non assumpsit. Issue to the country.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated March 28, 1838, given by the defendants for $85.00, to the plaintiff, or order, payable on demand, with interest, for value received. Plea, non assumpsit. Issue to the country. On the trial in the county court, the testimony tended to prove that the note was signed by Standclift as principal, and by Allen as surety, and that the plaintiff had knowledge, at the time of the delivery of the note to him by Standclift, that Allen had so signed as surety. The defendants introduced testimony tending to prove that the note was given for money loaned by the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
The question in this case is, whether the facts, proved at the trial, constitute any defence against the note for either, or both of the defendants.
Conceding to the defendants the principles which regulate contracts between a creditor and the surety of his debtor, we think the decision of the county court was correct, and the facts proved did, in no way, operate to discharge the surety.
*261Á contract, which is a fraud on third persons, may, on that account, be void as between the parties. On that principle the decision was made in the case…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Newell Brothers v. HansonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Warren v. BranchWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- Davis v. ConverseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1863
- Connecticut General Life Insurance v. ChaseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1900
- Bank of Middlebury v. BinghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.