Little v. Hale

11 Vt. 482
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided July 15, 1839·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Williams, C. J.

The question is, whether Hale is the trustee of Carleton. The same question was presented in Bennington county, in the case of Hinsdell v. Safford and others, trustees of Whiton, ante, 309; where it was held that the maker of a negotiable note could not be adjudged trustee of the payee, when the note was indorsed and notice given before it fell due, although the trustee process may have been served before the indorsement and notice. The decision in that case renders it unnecessary to repeat the views which the court then expressed. On the authority of that case, the judgment of the county court must be reversed and judgment rendered that Hale is not trustee of Carleton.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Little v. Hale, 11 Vt. 482 (Vt. 1839).

11 Vt. 482 (Little v. Hale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ayott v. Smith
40 Vt. 532 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1868)