Brown's v. Hitchcock
Supreme Court of Vermont
General Assumpsit. Pleas, thé general issue, the statute of limitations and payment. Replication of special matter to the plea of the statute. Demurrer to the replication. Heard on demurrer at the March Term, 1896, Rutland > County, Taft, J., presiding. The only promise contained in the contract is tbe promise to pay on demand. The testator’s option to apply the proceeds of certain property in his hands in payment does not change the character of the promise.
Read the full summary
General Assumpsit. Pleas, thé general issue, the statute of limitations and payment. Replication of special matter to the plea of the statute. Demurrer to the replication. Heard on demurrer at the March Term, 1896, Rutland > County, Taft, J., presiding. The only promise contained in the contract is tbe promise to pay on demand. The testator’s option to apply the proceeds of certain property in his hands in payment does not change the character of the promise. If he elects to take his pay from the proceeds there is no basis to support this action. If he elects to enforce the promise by action…
1Opinion of the CourtTyler, J.
Marshall Brown was the executor of the will of Robert H. Smith, and the defendant was a legatee and devisee under the will. The plaintiff as executor seeks to recover of the defendant in the common courts in assumpsit, the amount of three promissory notes, the first of which, dated August 8, 1873, is as follows:
“I, Charles Hitchcock, have received of Marshall Brown, as executor of the will of Robert H. Smith, late of Pawlet, Yt., deceased, four hundred and fifty dollars, which I agree to pay to him on demand with interest annually at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum from this date, or to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dunklee v. GoodenoughSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- McQuesten v. SpaldingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Brown's v. HitchcockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1899