Resource Holding Corporation v. Charles E. Schoff's Estate
Decision Date | 04 January 1933 |
Parties | RESOURCE HOLDING CORPORATION v. CHARLES E. SCHOFF'S ESTATE |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
October Term, 1932.
Bills and Notes---Rights of Parties to Note Governed by Law of Jurisdiction Where Made and Delivered---Stipulations---Agreed Statement of Facts Construed as Agreement of Fact Respecting Law of Foreign State.
1. Promissory note made and delivered in New York held New York contract, rights of parties thereto being governed by law of that jurisdiction.
2. Statement in agreed facts, that plaintiff claimed obligation to be governed by law of New York, and that under such law estate of deceased joint maker was liable jointly and severally with surviving obligors to instrument, held reasonably susceptible to court's construction that foreign law as so claimed by plaintiff was statement of fact to be "taken as proven."
APPEAL to county court from disallowance by commissioners on estate of Charles E. Schoff of substantial portion of plaintiff's claim as presented. Trial by court on an agreed statement of facts at the April Term, 1932, Franklin County, Buttles, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount of its claim. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case. Judgment affirmed. To be certified to the probate court.
Judgment affirmed. To be certified to the probate court.
S S. Cushing for the defendant.
Wm R. McFeeters for the plaintiff.
Present POWERS, C. J., SLACK, MOULTON, THOMPSON, and GRAHAM, JJ.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the action of the commissioners of the estate of Charles E. Schoff 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coral Gables, Inc. v. Aldo F. Christopher
... ... a person or corporation is required on an instrument or ... writing to ... Resource Holding Co. v. Schoff's Est., ... 105 Vt. 144, ... ...
-
Cherier Roberge v. Town of Troy
... ... construe them. Resource Holding Corp. v ... Schoff's Estate, 105 Vt ... ...