Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

44 Vt. 518

Barron v. Benedict

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 15, 1872

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1872-02-15

<p> New .Promise. Discharge in Bankruptcy. Evidence. Party. </p> <p>A promise to pay a debt discharged by proceedings in bankruptcy need not be made in writing to be valid, therefore may be proved by parol, and when proved is binding, and the party plaintiff is a competent witness to testify to the promise.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1886

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wheeler, J.

¶2There is no law in this State that requires a promise to pay a debt discharged by proceedings in bankruptcy to be made in writing to be valid. .Therefore such a promise may be proved by parol, and when proved is binding. The cases McLaughlin v. Hill, 6 Vt., 20 ; White v. Dow, 23 Vt., 302; and Spaulding v. Vincent, 24 Vt., 502, cited in behalf of the defendant to the point that the testimony of the plaintiffs was not competent to prove such new promise, were decided upon the law as it stood before the disqualifications of parties as witnesses were removed, and are not applicable to the law as it now stands in that respect. The parties are now competent witnesses, and such promise, established by their testimony, is as valid as if established by any other mode of proof.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/44/vt/518 · .json · Public domain