Potter v. Stanley
Supreme Court of Vermont
HENRY STANLEY brought his action in the County Court, against Amos Potter, 2d on a promissory note, to which the defendant put in the following plea in bar.
Read the full summary
HENRY STANLEY brought his action in the County Court, against Amos Potter, 2d on a promissory note, to which the defendant put in the following plea in bar. “ And now the said Amos Potter, 2d by his attornies, Young and Robinson, pleads and says, that the said Henry ought not to have and maintain his said action thereof against him the said Amos, because he says there was no consideration had and received of the said Henry, by - the said Amos, for which the said note, declared upon by the said Henry, was given ; but that the money received for which said note was given,'was received of Mrs.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Chipman, Ch. J.
The plea in bar in this case, if it amount to any thing, amounts to the general issue. . The consideration is, if I may use the expression, of the very essence of a promise. It is true that a general averment in a note and declaration, is, prima facie, sufficient for the plaintiff, and puts the defendant, to prove that the note was obtained by fraud, imposition, or on an illegal consideration, or on a consideration which has failed. If the defendant can shew this, the law says that he did not assume and promise. It goes to the original…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kimball v. Boston, Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882
- University of Vermont v. Baxter's estateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869