Lyndon Savings Bank v. International Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Special Assumpsit on a promissory note. The defendants severed in their defence, and each pleaded the general issue, with notice; Statute of Limitations; discharge of the International Company by plaintiff, and payment. Replications ; ‘ similiter to first plea; waiver, or estoppel, to- second; traverse of third. Rejoinders-by Prouty and Miller: traverse to second replication; similiter tp third.
Read the full summary
Special Assumpsit on a promissory note. The defendants severed in their defence, and each pleaded the general issue, with notice; Statute of Limitations; discharge of the International Company by plaintiff, and payment. Replications ; ‘ similiter to first plea; waiver, or estoppel, to- second; traverse of third. Rejoinders-by Prouty and Miller: traverse to second replication; similiter tp third. Rejoinder by International Company: Demurrer to- second replication; similiter to third. Trial by jury at the June Term, 1904, 'Caledonia County, Watson, J., presiding. Special verdicts; no general…
1Opinion of the CourtTyler, J.
The note in controversy is described in the opinion in this case, reported in 75 Vt. 224, 54 Atl. 191. At the first trial in the county court a verdict was directed for the defendants, which action this Court held was error, reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. We then held that:
“What relation Miller and Prouty assumed to’ the note by placing their names upon it was a question of fact, and not of law. If they became joint makers, no demand was necessary and this action was properly brought against them. If they were indorsers, it could not be held, as matter of law,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sylvester v. DownerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Thrall v. Estate of MeadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Ballard v. BurtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- State Trust Co. v. SheldonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895
- Stanton v. Estate of StantonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Parchen v. ChessmanMontana Supreme Court · 1914
- Brownrigg v. DefreesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- United States v. CardinalDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 1978
- Greenwood v. LamsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933
- Duchaine v. PhoenixSupreme Court of Vermont · 1927
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.