White v. Tarbell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Declaration on promissory note. Assumpsit. The declaration was as follows. “ In a plea of the case for that the defendant, at Royalton, in “ the county of Windsor, on the 15th day of June, A. D. 1854, “ by his promissory note of that date, under his hand, for value “ received, promised to pay Luther Perigo or bearer two hundred “ and fifty dollars with interest.
Read the full summary
Declaration on promissory note. Assumpsit. The declaration was as follows. “ In a plea of the case for that the defendant, at Royalton, in “ the county of Windsor, on the 15th day of June, A. D. 1854, “ by his promissory note of that date, under his hand, for value “ received, promised to pay Luther Perigo or bearer two hundred “ and fifty dollars with interest. And the plaintiff avers that he “ is the bona fide owner and beai-er of said note, yet, though, often “ requested of said defendant, he has never paid said note or any “ part thereof, but wholly neglects and refuses so to do, which is…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
We see no objection to the declaration, which can prevail on general demurrer.
The note is declared upon as a note payable to Luther Perigo or bearer, and the declaration avers that the plaintiff is the bona fide owner and bearer of said note. Though it was once doubted in this state, yet it has long been the settled law that, upon a note payable as this is, the bearer may maintain an action on it, in his own name, without an endorsement of it.
This declaration is much like the one in Dole v. Weeks in the 4th of Mass. 451, which was held well…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Okie v. SpencerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Bulkley v. LandonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Herrick v. BennettNew York Supreme Court · 1811