Carter v. Nichols
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Citation | 5 A. 197,58 Vt. 553 |
Decision Date | 24 July 1886 |
Parties | CARTER 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:
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.
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-
Rogers v. Penobscot Min. Co.
...... 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.
- Sparks v. Spaulding Mfg. Co.
- Carter v. Nichols