Seaboard National Bank v. Fisher

Supreme Court of Vermont

Seaboard National Bank v. Fisher

129 A. 927, 98 Vt. 506, 1925 Vt. LEXIS 157

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedMay 6, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 A. 927 (Seaboard National Bank v. Fisher) 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.

Bluebook

Seaboard National Bank v. Fisher, 129 A. 927, 98 Vt. 506, 1925 Vt. LEXIS 157 (Vt. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler, J.

This action is brought to recover on a joint promissory note dated at Bethel, Vermont, February 1, 1922, which reads: ‘ Twelve months after date we promise to pay to the order of E. C. Fisher, Five Thousand Dollars at the National White River Bank, Bethel, Vermont, value received with interest from date, ’ ’ signed by both defendants who are, and were at the time, husband and wife. Plea, the general issue. Trial by the court, and judgment for plaintiff against both defendants. The sole defense was that Pauline signed the note as surety for her husband’s debt and in no other capacity, and so is not liable thereon.

Two questions are briefed and discussed: (a) Whether the defendant Pauline E. Fisher, who signed the note with her husband as a joint maker, could, in view of the form of the note, be permitted to show by parol evidence that she signed it solely as surety for her husband’s debt; and (b) whether she could make that defense as against the plaintiff who is found, in effect, to have taken the note in good faith and for value before maturity, in due course of business, and had no notice of any infirmity.

The court in effect has found as a fact that the note was signed by Pauline E. Fisher as surety for her husband’s debt and in no other capacity.

The first question was- involved in the case of National Bank of Newbury v. Carrie M. Hale, 98 Vt. 481, 129 Atl. 155, in which an opinion has been handed down in favor of the defendant. The second was involved in the ease of Wetmore & Morse Granite Co. v. Ryle et al., 93 Vt. 245, 107 Atl. 109. These cases are *508 controlling as to the disposition .of this case and any further discussion of the law can serve no good purpose at this time.

The plaintiff’s motion to .dismiss the exceptions was fully treated in this case when it was first before this Court. Seaboard National Bank v. Fisher, 98 Vt. 20, 124 Atl. 588.

Judgment reversed as to Pauline E. Fisher, and judgment for her to recover costs. As to defendant E. A. Fisher, judgment affirmed.

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

Butler, J.

This action is brought to recover on a joint promissory note dated at Bethel, Vermont, February 1, 1922, which reads: ‘ Twelve months after date we promise to pay to the order of E. C. Fisher, Five Thousand Dollars at the National White River Bank, Bethel, Vermont, value received with interest from date, ’ ’ signed by both defendants who are, and were at the time, husband and wife. Plea, the general issue. Trial by the court, and judgment for plaintiff against both defendants. The sole defense was that Pauline signed the note as surety for her husband’s debt and in no other capacity, and so is not liable thereon.

Two questions are briefed and discussed: (a) Whether the defendant Pauline E. Fisher, who signed the note with her husband as a joint maker, could, in view of the form of the note, be permitted to show by parol evidence that she signed it solely as surety for her husband’s debt; and (b) whether she could make that defense as against the plaintiff who is found, in effect, to have taken the note in good faith and for value before maturity, in due course of business, and had no notice of any infirmity.

The court in effect has found as a fact that the note was signed by Pauline E. Fisher as surety for her husband’s debt and in no other capacity.

The first question was- involved in the case of National Bank of Newbury v. Carrie M. Hale, 98 Vt. 481, 129 Atl. 155, in which an opinion has been handed down in favor of the defendant. The second was involved in the ease of Wetmore & Morse Granite Co. v. Ryle et al., 93 Vt. 245, 107 Atl. 109. These cases are *508 controlling as to the disposition .of this case and any further discussion of the law can serve no good purpose at this time.

The plaintiff’s motion to .dismiss the exceptions was fully treated in this case when it was first before this Court. Seaboard National Bank v. Fisher, 98 Vt. 20, 124 Atl. 588.

Judgment reversed as to Pauline E. Fisher, and judgment for her to recover costs. As to defendant E. A. Fisher, judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A. 927, 98 Vt. 506, 1925 Vt. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaboard-national-bank-v-fisher-vt-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack