Russell v. Rood
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of special matter of defence. Trial by jury, Chittenden County, September Term, 1899, Rowell, J., presiding. Yerdict directed for the plaintiff. Judgment on verdict. The defendant excepted. The note in suit was for $22.50, signed by the defendant and payable to the order ,of the International Seed Company.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of special matter of defence. Trial by jury, Chittenden County, September Term, 1899, Rowell, J., presiding. Yerdict directed for the plaintiff. Judgment on verdict. The defendant excepted. The note in suit was for $22.50, signed by the defendant and payable to the order ,of the International Seed Company. It was conceded by the plaintiff that it was endorsed to him after maturity, without value, and solely for the purpose of collection. The note was given in the purchase of ten bushels of oats, and a…
1Opinion of the CourtStart, J.
The action not being between the original parties to the note, the evidence offered by the defendant was properly excluded. The defendant did not offer to rescind the contract, and the evidence would only tend to show a breach of the contract and a partial failure of consideration; therefore, the offer was not within the provision of Y. S. 1152, which provides that, in actions between the original- parties to a note, the defendant may show partial failure of consideration. This statute only applies to actions between the maker and payee of the note as shown by the note itself. Hoyt v.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Thrall v. HortonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1872
- Hoyt v. McNallySupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- Burgess v. NashSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893