Russell v. Rood

Supreme Court of Vermont
Russell v. Rood, 72 Vt. 238 (Vt. 1900)
47 A. 789; 1900 Vt. LEXIS 121
Munson, Start, Taft, Tart, Thompson, Tyler, Watson

Russell v. Rood

Opinion of the Court

Start, J.

The action not being between the original parties to the note, the evidence offered by the defendant was properly excluded. The defendant did not offer to rescind the contract, and the evidence would only tend to show a breach of the contract and a partial failure of consideration; therefore, the offer was not within the provision of Y. S. 1152, which provides that, in actions between the original- parties to a note, the defendant may show partial failure of consideration. This statute only applies to actions between the maker and payee of the note as shown by the note itself. Hoyt v. McNally, 66 Vt. 38; Burgess v. Nash, 66 Vt. 44; Thrall v. Horton, 44 Vt. 386.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., and Watson, J., dissent.

Reference

Full Case Name
J. W. Russell v. C. A. Rood
Status
Published