Carter v. Nichols

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont
Citation5 A. 197,58 Vt. 553
Decision Date24 July 1886
PartiesCARTER v. NICHOLS.

Exceptions from Washington county.

This was an action of general assumpsit brought by John Hardigan against the defendant, in the name of Carter, nominal plaintiff. Plea, general issue, and notice of payment and settlement. Trial by court, Washington county, September term, 1885; Powers, J., presiding. Judgment for defendant to recover his costs. Exceptions by plaintiff. It appeared that Carter, who is the nominal plaintiff, was in the employ of the defendant in April, 1884; was arrested on an execution in favor of Hardigan; and, in part consideration for his release from said arrest, executed the following writing:

"Montpelier, Vt., April 12, A. D. 1884.

"Mr. John W. Nichols—Sir: Please pay to John Hardigan, or order, the sum of ten dollars per month for the next two months, and the sum of five dollars per month thereafter while I work for you, out of my wages, until a certain judgment in favor of Frank D. Hardigan (by his next friend) against me, the said William Carter, is paid or settled. William Carter.

"Witness: Geo. W. Wing."

"BARRE, April, 1884.

"I hereby accept notice of the above assignment, and agree to pay the said Hardigan the above sums as they become due to the said Carter, or to pay the same to the assignee of the said Hardigan."

On the fourteenth day of April the defendant was notified by the said Hardigan of the assignment, and asked to sign the acceptance, which he then and there refused to do, and informed Hardigan that he would not honor the assignment, and said Hardigan notified him that he should hold him responsible. The plaintiff worked for the defendant several months after the assignment, and the defendant paid the plaintiff the amount due before this suit was brought. Upon these facts the court ruled, as a matter of law, the defendant was not liable, and gave him judgment for his costs, to which the plaintiff excepted.

Gordon & Gary, for John Hardigan.

S. C. Shurtleff, for defendant.

A claim cannot be split up so as to subject a party to distinct suits against his will. Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277; Fairgrieves v. Lehigh Nav. Co., 2 Phila. 182; Gibson v. Cooke, 20 Pick. 15.

Ross, J. The plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant, in 1884, at $20 per month. April 12, 1884, he wrote a line to the defendant, requesting him to pay John Hardigan, or order, the sum of $10 per month for the next two months, and the sum of $5 per month thereafter while he should work for the defendant, until a certain judgment against him should be paid. Attached to the writing was an acceptance, and an agreement to pay Hardigan these sums as they became due. The order was presented to the defendant, with a request that he would sign the acceptance. This he refused to do. The plaintiff continued to work for the defendant over three months, and the defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Rogers v. Penobscot Min. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 27, 1907
    ...... Burditt v. Porter, 21 A. 955, 63 Vt. 296, 25. Am.St.Rep. 763; Shankland v. City of Washington, 5 Pet. (U.S.) 389, 395, 8 L.Ed. 166; Carter v. Nichols, 5. Atl. 197, 58 Vt. 553; Crosby v. Loop, 13 Ill. 625, 628; Otis v. Adams, 27 A. 1092, 56 N.J.Law, 38;. Milroy v. Spurr, etc., ......
  • Cooper v. Yazoo & M.V.R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 19, 1903
  • Sparks v. Spaulding Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 20, 1913
  • Carter v. Nichols
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • July 24, 1886
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT