Res. Holding Co. v. Schoff's Estate
Decision Date | 04 January 1933 |
Citation | 163 A. 768 |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Parties | RESOURCE HOLDING CO. v. SCHOFF'S ESTATE. |
Exceptions from Franklin County Court; John S. Buttles, Judge.
Proceeding by the Resource Holding Company, for allowance of a claim against the estate of Charles E. Sehoff. From a judgment allowing claim in full, defendant brings exceptions.
Judgment affirmed; to be certified to the probate court.
Argued before POWERS, C. J., and SLACK, MOULTON, THOMPSON, and GRAHAM, JJ.
Wm. R. McFeeters, of St. Albans, for plaintiff.
S. S. Cushing, of St. Albans, for defendant.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the action of the commissioners of the estate of Charles E. Sehoff in allowing only one-fifth of its claim against the estate. There was a trial in county court on an agreed statement of facts, and a judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the full amount of its claim. The defendant excepted.
The plaintiff seeks to recover upon the following promissory note:
It appears from the agreed facts that the commissioners allowed the claim for one-fifth of the amount due on the note, and that the defendant then claimed and now claims that the obligation was a joint one, and that the defendant is liable only for one-fifth of the amount due thereon.
The plaintiff's contention is set forth in the agreed facts as follows:
It appears in the agreed facts that the note in suit was "made and delivered in New York on the date named," that is, on October 29, 1930. It is therefore a New York contract, and the rights of the parties are to be governed by the law of that jurisdiction. Harrison v. Edwards, 12 Vt. 648, 36 Am. Dec. 364; Barrett v. Kelley, 66 Vt. 515, 29 A. 809, 44 Am. St. Rep. 862; Smith v. Anderson, 70 Vt. 424. 41 A. 441; Bishop & Co. v. Thompson, 99 Vt. 17, 130 A. 701.
The defendant contends that what is stated in the agreed facts as to the law of New York appears to be a statement of the plaintiff's claim as to that law, and not a fact agreed to by the parties; that, if the liability of the defendant is to be governed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT BOSTON, MASS., JULY 31, 1973, 160.
...Credit Corp. v. Carden, supra, and Boston Law Book Co. v. Hathorn, 119 Vt. 416, 127 A.2d 120 (1956), with Resource Holding Co. v. Shoff's Estate, 105 Vt. 144, 163 A. 768 (1933) and Smith v. Anderson, 70 Vt. 424, 41 A. 441 Also relevant to a determination of whether the Vermont Supreme Court......
-
Coral Gables, Inc. v. Christopher
... ... Resource Holding Corporation v. Schoff's Estate, 105 Vt. 144, 145, 163 A. 768. But the ... ...
-
Pioneer Credit Corp. v. Carden
... ... Resource Holding Corp. v. Schoff's Estate, 105 Vt. 144, 145, 163 A. 768. See also General ... ...
-
Roberge v. Town of Troy
...answer are reasonably susceptible to that construction, and it was not error for the court to so construe them. Resource Holding Co. v. Schoff's Estate, 104 Vt. ——, 163 A. 768. The court found in finding No. 8 that prior to 6 p. m. on September 29, 1930, when the mortgage of that date from ......