Lawrence v. Graves' Estate
| Decision Date | 29 September 1888 |
| Citation | 15 A. 342,60 Vt. 657 |
| Parties | SARAH LAWRENCE v. E. A. GRAVES' ESTATE |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
FEBRUARY TERM, 1888
APPEAL from the Probate Court for the district of Manchester. The plaintiff's declaration consisted of the common counts in assumpsit and a special count upon a promissory note for $ 700, dated March 5, 1873, signed by the deceased, E. A Graves. Pleas, general issue and Statute of Limitations. Trial by jury, June Term, 1887. Ross, J., presiding. Verdict for the plaintiff.
The judgment is affirmed.
J G. Martin and J. C. Baker, for the defendant.
This was an action of assumpsit, in which the appellant claimed to recover the amount due upon a promissory note dated March 5 1873, signed by the said E. A. Graves and made payable to Russell Lawrence, the father of the plaintiff, or bearer, in one day after date, with interest annually. In the settlement of her father's estate the plaintiff became the owner of the note. The defence relied upon was the Statute of Limitations.
There were three indorsements on the note, one dated March 11, 1874, one May 22, 1878, and one of $ 5, dated August 22, 1883. No question was made about the first two, but the defendant denied that the third indorsement represented an actual payment, and it not being in the handwriting of E. A. Graves, he objected to its being received as evidence. The court admitted it in connection with the other evidence in the case as a circumstance tending to show an actual payment, and the defendant excepted to that ruling.
The decision made in Bailey v. Danforth, 53 Vt. 504, we regard as decisive of the question presented by this exception. There, as here, the action was brought to recover upon a promissory note, and the defence made was the Statute of Limitations. There was an indorsement of $ 3.00 made upon the note within six years of the commencement of the action, and the plaintiff offered said endorsement as evidence tending to show part payment of the note. It did not appear that the indorsement was made by the holder or payee of the notes but it was used in evidence for the purpose for which it was offered; and the court say that such an indorsement may be weighed in determining whether payment has been made, though of itself not sufficient to establish the payment.
It appeared that the indorsement on the note was made by Franklin E. Lawrence; and the plaintiff was allowed, subject to the objection and exception of the defendant, to put the following question to Lawrence: The question did not call for any conversation...
To continue reading
Request your trial