Baxter v. Buck
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff declared against the defendant and one Elijah G. Bingham, who was Without this state and upom whom no service was made, Upon a promissory note for $250, dated March, 9, 1827, -Signed by the said Bingham and defendant and payable to William Baxter, (the intestate) or bearer, on demand with interest. Plea — non assumpsit and issue to the country.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff declared against the defendant and one Elijah G. Bingham, who was Without this state and upom whom no service was made, Upon a promissory note for $250, dated March, 9, 1827, -Signed by the said Bingham and defendant and payable to William Baxter, (the intestate) or bearer, on demand with interest. Plea — non assumpsit and issue to the country. The plaintiff, in support of the issue, on her part, offered the deposition of Portus Baxter, a son of the intestate, and one of the heirs to his estate, which was objected to by the defendant, on the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Williams, C. J.
In this case the court are all agreed that the deposition of Portus Baxter was inadmissible. Although his interest in the note was released by him, yet, if the plain*-, tiff failed, the cost of prosecuting the suit, as well as the cost which would be paid to the defendant, would constitute a good charge against the estate of Wh1* JJaxter^ and would, in the end, be paid by the heirs. To make him a witness it was necessary, in addition to the release executed by lfim, that the plaintiff should have discharged him from a]] plaim for cost.…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Condit v. . BaldwinNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Bell v. . DayNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Willey v. HunterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1884
- Austin v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- McFarland v. CarrWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.