Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Vt. 514

Rolfe v. Lamb

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 15, 1844

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1844-02-15

Book Account.. The defendants presented no account; the plaintiff’s account contained but a single charge, which was for $88.00 in money, in reference to which the auditor reported the following factsi The defendants had executed jointly a note to Holmes & Homer of Boston ; but, as between themselves, Lamb was the principal and the other two defendants sureties only.

Relies on Lapham v. Barnes · Elmendorph v. Tappen

Decided 1844-02-15

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

¶2The question presented to us resolves itself into this; does the request of the defendant Lamb to the plaintiff, to lend him money to pay a note signed by him as principal, and by the other two defendants as his sureties, and the application of the money to that purpose, enure in law as the request of all the defendants 1 Though it may be true, that, among joint principals, the request of one may, in law, enure as the request of all, yet that principle cannot control this case. The case of Lapham v. Barnes et al, 2 Vt. 213, is conclusive of the present question. See, also, Elmendorf v. Tappen, 5 Johns. 176. It is not found by the auditor that Hutchinson and Hall in fact authorized Lamb to borrow the money on their joint account, or subsequently assented to its being charged to them.

¶3The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

/16/vt/514 · .json · Public domain