Roberts v. Atherton
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Heard by the court September Term,' 1887, Tyxer, J., presiding. The court held that the discharge in insolvency was not a bar, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff. No place was designated in the note where it was payable. The other facts are stated in the opinion. The note being payable generally was payable in Vermont.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Heard by the court September Term,' 1887, Tyxer, J., presiding. The court held that the discharge in insolvency was not a bar, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff. No place was designated in the note where it was payable. The other facts are stated in the opinion. The note being payable generally was payable in Vermont. Feclc v. Hibbard, 26 Vt. 701 ; 12 N. H. 520. The discharge bars a recovery, The contract was to be performed here, and the lex loci governs and is a part of the contract. Mather v. Bush, 16 John. 233; Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1;…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Ross, J.
The note on which recovery is sought was given in this State to the plaintiff, then a resident of the State, by the defendant, then also a citizen and resident of the State.
The plaintiff removed from the State. Subsequently the defendant was adjudged an insolvent and by due course of proceedings received a discharge in the court of insolvency. The plaintiff in no way became a party to the proceedings in the court of insolvency in which the defendant obtained his discharge. The single question presented by the exceptions is, did the discharge…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Baldwin v. HaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- Bedell & Warden v. ScrutonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882
- McDougall v. PageSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pullen v. HillmanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1891
- Chase v. HenryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Security Savings & Trust Co. v. RogersIdaho Supreme Court · 1899