Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Vt. 402

Henry v. Colman

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 15, 1833

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1833-02-15

This was an action of- assumpsit on note dated October 18, 1820, for the sum of'fifty dollars, with interest, payable in six years from date, signed by the defendant, on which note was written the condition as stated in the opinion of the Court. Pica, non-assumpsit, and issue to the jury. The plaintiff read the note to the jury, and there rested his case. The defendant then read a deposition from Oliver Smith, which is made part of the case, and there rested his defence.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1833-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1923

5 state decisions

101833184018501860187018801890190019101920decided

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 Conrt was pronounced by

Baylies, J.

¶2The bill of exceptions in this case, shows, that Hull JYims and Thaddeus Colman, on the 7th September, 1820, gave their joint and several note, promising to pay Samuel Henry, or order, $2300 in five years from the first day of April then next, with interest annually; also that this note was endorsed by Henry to Oliver Smith, who paid Henry the full amount of the note in money.

¶3Moreover, the bill of exceptions shows, that on the ISfch October, 3820, Thaddeus Colman gave his note to Samuel Henry to pay him $50 in six years from'date; and upon this note was written, “The condition of this obligation is such, that if Samuel Henry shall well and truly pay a note signed by Hull JVims and Thaddeus Colman, payable to Oliver Smith, of Hatfield, for the sum of .$2200, in five Years from the first of April next, with interest, dated Sep-* tember, 1820, then this obligation to be in full force. But if the said Hull or Thaddeus shall expend any time or moa* ey in consequence, then so much to be deducted there-* from.”

Roberts, for plaintiff.Kellogg, for defendant.

¶4Samuel Henry has brought his action against Thaddeus Colman on this $50 note, and we are called upon to settle the rights of the parties. It is obvious, that by the condition annexed to the $50 note, Samuel Henry, if he paid the large note of $2200 to Oliver Smith, was entitled to collect the $50 note of Thaddeus Colman, except what should be deducted from said $50 note for time or money expended by said Hull or Thaddeus in consequence of their having signed the $2200 note.

¶5If the $50 note was to be in force on Samuel Henry's paying the large note of $2200 to Oliver Smith, (and this seems to be the condition) then Henry, before he can collect the $50 note, must show that he has paid the $2200 note; for it is on such payment only, that the $50 note is “ to be of full force." And it is to be inferred from the con-r d.ition of the small note, that if Henry did not pay the large note, the small one was not to be in force. The de? position of Oliver Smith shows, that JYims and Colman paid the large note; therefore Henry can have no claim on the small note.

¶6We consider this construction to be the meaning of the parties to the $50 note, which should be carried into effect.

¶7Judgement of the County Court is affirmed.

/5/vt/402 · .json · Public domain