Austin v. McClure
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Heard on a referee’s report, April Term, 1887, Ross, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The case appears in tbe opinion. What the defendant supposed or intended at the time he furnished the last three items of sugar, has nothing to do with the right of the plaintiff to apply the same on the note. This fact standing alone would not defeat the creditor’s right to his money.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Heard on a referee’s report, April Term, 1887, Ross, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The case appears in tbe opinion. What the defendant supposed or intended at the time he furnished the last three items of sugar, has nothing to do with the right of the plaintiff to apply the same on the note. This fact standing alone would not defeat the creditor’s right to his money. The sugar was furnished to apply on the note, or in fulfillment of the defendant’s obligation to support. It was voluntarily furnished for one purpose or the other. The note was a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, Ch. J.
This is an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the amount due on a promissory note executed by the defendant made payable to the plaintiff, and dated November 26, 1866.- The defence was the Statute of Limitations, and the case was heard upon the report of a referee. No question was made but what the plaintiff’s right of recovery was barred, unless it was saved by the endorsements which appear on the note of April, 1880, 1881 and 1882. The referee has found that the said endorsements were made by the plaintiff at the same time and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ayer v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Wheeler v. HouseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Roakes v. Bailey & NewcombSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Cleaveland v. DinsmoreSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887
- Corliss & Way v. GrowSupreme Court of Vermont · 1884
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wilden v. McAllisterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902