endomorphosis/Caselaw_Access_Project_JSON

1"{\"id\": \"740237\", \"name\": \"Bank of Montpelier v. Robert Russell and Others\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Bank of Montpelier v. Russell\", \"decision_date\": \"1855-04\", \"docket_number\": \"\", \"first_page\": \"719\", \"last_page\": \"720\", \"citations\": \"27 Vt. 719\", \"volume\": \"27\", \"reporter\": \"Vermont Reports\", \"court\": \"Vermont Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Vermont\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T23:57:47.351544+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"Bank of Montpelier v. Robert Russell and Others.\", \"head_matter\": \"Bank of Montpelier v. Robert Russell and Others.\\nDeclaration on promissory note.\\nA declaration by the Bank of Montpelier that the defendants, by tbeir promissory note, at &c., promised the President, Directors and Company of the Bank of Montpelier, to pay them, &c., in the brief form which has been very generally used in this state, for declarations on promissory notes, without,any averment that the Bank of M. and the P., D \\u00abSc Co. of the Bank of M. were thejsame, and without any averment of the time and place of the promise, except in the statement respecting the date of the note, held sufficient on demurrer.\\nAsstoipsit. By the \\\"writ and declaration the defendants were notified to appear, &c., \\u201c then and there, in said court, to answer to \\u201c the Bank of Montpelier, at Montpelier, in the county of Washington, in a plea of the case for that the defendants, by their \\u201c promissory note, dated at Richmond, May 12th, 1853, for value \\u201c received, jointly and severally promised the President, Directors \\u201c and Company of the Bank of Montpelier, to pay them the sum \\u201c of five hundred and seventy dollars, in three months from date, \\u2014 \\u25a0 \\u201c which is unpaid, though demanded.\\u201d\\nTo this declaration, the defendants filed a general demurrer. The county court, March Term, 1854, \\u2014 Poland, J., presiding,\\u2014 adjudged the declaration sufficient.\\nExceptions by the defendants.\\nT. P. Bedfield for the defendants.\\nPeck 8; Oolby for the plaintiffs.\", \"word_count\": \"327\", \"char_count\": \"1939\", \"text\": \"By the court, Redfield, Ch. J.\\nThe only question raised in the present case is in regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' declaration, upon general demurrer. It is in a brief form, which has been in very general use in the state, for many years, and always regarded, by this court as sufficient, in the ordinary case of natural persons being parties to the suit. An attempt is made to show that the plaintiff is not properly described, but we see no difficulty upon that ground.\\nJudgment affirmed.\"}"