The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1914-05-07
BANK SUED ON NOTES.
Clement National Plaintiff Against Con-
molly and LnYeIand

HUliy anu LOVelduu.
Several cases were argued before Yer.
mont supreme court yesterday The
first was from Rutland county and was
that Of Clement National bank vs. James
Connolly and Samuel II. Loveland. The
defendants, James Connolly and Samuel
W. Loyeland were partners doing bus
mess at the city of Rutland on the first
day of July, 1900. until the affairs of
the partnership We're wound up by a
receiver appointed by the court of chan
Gerry Of Rutland county October l3, 1911,
on the petition of James Connolly.
The business engaged in was plumb
ing, heating and range equipping and
selling and installing equipment, in
which business they were engaged as
partners at the time of the execution
and discounting of the notes in question.
The suit was brought on notes one for
sl75 and one for 500 on the Clement
National bank of Rutland, which were
signed by S. w. Loveland and endorsed
by S. w. Loveland and the firm of Con-
molly & Loveland.
1t was claimed by the defendants that
said notes were discounted by Loveland
as maker OF them at the plaintiffs bank
and $. w. Loveland took and kept the
money for personal use, that the part
nership received no benefit from them
and that Connolly did not know OF the
transaction although he was within easy
reach OF the bank on each occasion. The
firm accordingly denies its liability for
the notes.
The plaintiff claims on the other hand
that Loyeland came into the bank ap-
parently as a partner, with full author
ity to negotiate loan and signed. it
himself and for the partnership and the
bank in honaring it was dealing with
legal paper in proper manner The
plaintiff considers that the firm il liable
for the notes and asks that Judgment be
reversed.
Foreclosure Case Heard.
The next case taken up was the Rut-
land county case OF p. Ballentine & Sons
VS.. Eta NJ Fem and Frederick Fem,
foreclosure. The attorneys on the case
were I. w. Moloney, Lawrence and Law
renee & Stafford for the plaintiff and
Charles Il, Howe for the defendant.
Frederick Fem went into bankruptcy
in the fall of 1907 and January II. 1908,
was granted discharge in bankruptcy.
The defendants claim that having proved
their claim in bankruptcy court they are
absolved from further debt while the
plaintiff presents certain claims against
said defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that the defend
ant, Frederick Fem, made contract to
buy liquor exclusively of him, while the
defendants claim that this contract was
illegal under the laws of Vermont and
not valid, and that the orator cannot
recover for liquor sold under that con-
tract.
The Grand Isle county case of Sicily
vs. Sicily was also heard by the court
The attorneys of the case were Furman
& Webster for the plaintiff, and Ladd,
Billiard & Horton for the defendant.
John Skelly died leaving all his debts
paid. His store was taken over and
run by his son, Arthur, who contracted
large debts in its operation which were
charged up by him against the estate, it
was claimed.
The defendant claimed that the widow
and family understood when her son,
Arthur, took over the business that he
was to run it for the estate just as his
father had done and that bills contracted
were to be paid out of the estate.
The plaintiff argued that Arthur was
running the store on his own response
bility, and the widow did not know he
was contracting large debts that would
be credited against the estate, that he
should have kept the accounts separate
and that the widow is entitled to re-
cover