Hotchkiss v. C. J. Ladd & Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit in two special counts and the common counts. Pleas, the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. To both of these the plaintiff replied, and to these replications the defendant Ladd demurred. The county court, September Term, 1863, — Aldis, J., presiding, — fro forma, sustained the demurrer, and held the declaration and replications insufficient. Exceptions by the plaintiff. The substance of the pleadings is given in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Poland, Ch. J.
To the plaintiff’s declaration the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, and the statute of frauds, to both which pleas the plaintiff replied, and to these replications Ladd demurred.
The defendant Ladd claims not only that the plaintiff’s replications are insufficient, but that the plaintiff’s declaration is also defective, so as to bo reached by the demurrer.
Two objections are made to the declaration.
1st. That it states no sufficient consideration to support the promise declared on.
2d. That the promise is within the statute of frauds. Whether either of these objections…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- President of Grafton Bank v. DoeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Myers v. MorseNew York Supreme Court · 1818
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pocket v. AlmonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
- Render v. LillardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Dufur v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- Williams-Hayward Shoe Co. v. BrooksWyoming Supreme Court · 1901
- Green v. SeymourSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.