Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 Vt. 24

Morey v. Wakefield

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 15, 1868

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1868-02-15

Assumpsit to recover on a promissory note. Plea, non assump-sit. The plaintiff gave in evidence a note dated July 13,1865, executed by the defendant to J. D. & H. Smith on that day, for §500, payable to them .or bearer on demand with interest. The -defendant testified that said note was given for liquor bought by 'him of the payees, which was used at the hotel kept by him at IFayetteville in said county, and that he had no authority to sell liquor.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 1934

5 state decisions

2018681870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Pierpoint, C. J.

¶2This action is brought by the plaintiff as the indorsee of a promissory note, given by the defendant to J. B. & H. Smith or bearer, payable on demand with interest, dated the 13th day of July, 1865, and sold and indorsed to the plaintiff by the payees in the fore part of May, 1866. It is conceded that this note was given for intoxicating liquor bought by the maker, of the payees, to bo sold in violation of law, and under such circumstances that, as between the original parties to it, it could not be enforced.

¶3The plaintiff claims to recover on the ground that he is an innocent holder for value, ignorant of the consideration'for which' it was given, and that he took it in the due1 course of business, while it was current and before it was due.

¶4The first question that naturally suggests itself, is whether the-plaintiff did in fact take this note while current and before it was due. If he did not, the other questions which have been discussed, become immaterial, as no question is made by the plaintiff but that, if he took the note when past due, he took it subject *27to all defenses that would have been available if the suit bad been by the original payees.

¶5The note was payable on demand with interest, and was taken by the plaintiff of the payees about ten months after it was executed. Was the note then past due ?

¶6We do not now consider this an open question in this state; certainly not, so far as defenses by the maker are concerned. This precise question arose in Camp v. Clark and trustee, 14 Vt., 387. In that case the court held that a note payable on demand with interest, and negotiated two months after its date, was negotiated when it was past due, and held the maker liable as the trustee of the original payee, although, as the law then stood in this state, no maker of a negotiable note could be made liable as trustee of the payee, until the note had become due in his hands unnegotiated. We think this case must be controlled by that.

¶7Having this view, it would be a needless waste of time and labor to go into a lengthy discussion of this and the other questions that have been so ably argued by counsel on both sides.

¶8Judgment of the county court reversed, and judgment for tho defendant for his cost.

/41/vt/24 · .json · Public domain