Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Vt. 217

Gowry v. Ward

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 15, 1853

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1853-02-15

<p> Special Assumpsit. Variance. </p> <p>Where the plaintiff, in his declaration, as á consideration for the promise, set forth, “ that the defendant being indebted to the plaintiff in about the sum of forty-three dollars and fifty cents, in consideration that the plaintiff would acquit him therefor, promised the plaintiff in satisfaction thereof, to give him a promissory note of about the sum of twenty-four dollars, and deliver to him a certain rifle gun,” &e., and the proof was, that “defendant gave his note payable in one year, to one Lathrop, for fifteen thousand heart shingles, Which note belonged to the plaintiff, and that it was agreed between the parties, that said note should be given up, by plaintiff to the defendant, and that defendant should, within a week or ten days thereafter, deliver to the plaintiff a note for twenty-four dollars, payable in three thousand feet of floor plank, and a rifle gun,” &c.-, it was held, that tins was a variance; the legal intendment from the declaration being that it was to be a cash note.</p>

Decided 1853-02-15

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

¶2The only question in this case, is a question of variance; and we think there must be a new trial.

¶3The declaration, as a consideration for the promise, states an indebtedness from the defendant to the plaintiff in about forty-three dollars and fifty cents, and an agreement that he would acquit the defendant therefrom. The proof is an indebtedness from defendant to one Subbell Lathrop, in a note, for fifteen thousand heart shingles, payable to Lathrop, in one year from date, of which note the plaintiff was the holder, the note bearing date in November, 1842.

¶4The note not being negotiable, the legal indebtedness was to Lathrop, and the plaintiff had only an equitable claim against the defendant; and the promise in the declaration, on the part of the defendant, was to give the plaintiff his promissory note for about twenty-four dollars, and a certain rifle gun, valued at ten dollars, which had belonged to Artemas War’d, Jr. The note which the defendant was to give the plaintiff, as appears by the evidence, wastobe for twenty-four dollars, payable in three thousand feet of floor plank, and to be given within a week or ten days. The legal intendment from the declaration is, that the note was to be given, upon the plaintiff’s discharging his debt, and that it was to be a cash note for about twenty-four dollars. It requires no argument to show that a note payable in lumber, is not the same thing as if payable in cash.

¶5The judgment of the County Court is reversed, and the case remanded.

/25/vt/217 · .json · Public domain