Field v. Hamilton
This text of 45 Vt. 35 (Field v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[37]*37The opinion of the court was delivered by
The defendant is overpaid for his oxen, and therefore has money in his hands that does not belong to himself. By virtue of the agreement between the plaintiff and McDuffie, as between .them, it was the duty of McDuffie to pay for the oxen, and as he has not overpaid, the excess does not belong to him. By virtue of the same agreement, the plaintiff was left to stand as a surety merely for McDuffie to the defendant on that debt, and when he paid the debt he became entitled, by subrogation, to all the securities and avails of securities which the defendant had, or after-wards received, on account of the debt. 1 Story Eq. § 499; Miller v. Sawyer, 30 Vt. 412. The defendant had the note of McDuffie as such security and afterwards received the sum of eighty-five dollars as avails of the note, and when 'he received this money, it belonged to the plaintiff.
What was said and done by the plaintiff and McDuffie about inducing the defendant to accept the note of McDuffie in payment for the oxen, can have no effect upon the rights of these parties, for the defendant was not so induced, and on the contrary required payment of the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 Vt. 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/field-v-hamilton-vt-1872.