Wing v. Peck

54 Vt. 245
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedOctober 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 Vt. 245 (Wing v. Peck) 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
Wing v. Peck, 54 Vt. 245 (Vt. 1881).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Rowell, J.

This case is free from any attempt to evade the Statute of Usury, and presents the simple question, whether a claim for money paid as usury can be discharged without actual satisfaction, long after the money has been paid. This is unlike the case of Herrick v. Dean, reported elsewhere in this volume. There, resort was had to a device to evade the statute at the time the loan was made, and while the borrower’s necessities were upon him; while here, the borrower, long after the loan, voluntarily elects to discharge his claim.

[248]*248We see no legal reason why such a claim, in the circumstances of this case, may not be discharged, the same as any ordinary claim for the recovery of money. Churchill v. Cole, 32 Vt. 93. The discharge being under seal, imports consideration. “ If the obligee do receive a part, and thereof make an acquittance under his seal in full satisfaction of the whole, it is sufficient, by reason the deed amounteth to an acquittance of the whole.” Co. Litt. [212 b.]

We find no error in the judgment below; but, on motion of the plaintiff, that judgment is reversed, pro forma, and the cause remanded, with leave to the plaintiff to replead on the usual terms.

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

Related

Quigley v. Wiley
179 A. 206 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1935)
Wilder v. St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain Railroad
65 Vt. 43 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 Vt. 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wing-v-peck-vt-1881.