Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/The-obligation-secured-a-Character-of-obligation-Part-4.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:31:41+00:00

Document:
Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Kock, 117 Mich. 225, 75 N. W. 458.
5. Youngs v. Wilson, 27 N. Y. 351; Soule v. Albee, 31 Vt. 142; But in Connecticut the maximum amount of the obligation must be named. Bridgeport Land & Title Co. v. George Orlove Co., 91 Conn. 496, 100 Atl. 30.
6. Stoughton v. Pascoe, 5 Conn. 442, 13 Am. Dec. 72; Holley's Ex'r v. Curry, 58 W. Va. 70, 112 Am. St. Rep. 944, 51 S. E. 135.
7. Seymour v. Darrow, 31 Vt. 122, per Redfield, C. J.
8. Hurd v. Robinson, 11 Obio St. 232, per Gholson, J.
9. See, as instances of the strictness enforced in this respect in Connecticut, Pettibone v. Gris-wold, 4 Conn. 158; Bramhall v. Flood, 41 Conn. 68. The course of decision in this state in this regard has been criticized in other states. See Hurd v. Robinson, 11 Ohio St. 232; Clark v. Hyman, 55 Iowa, 14, 39 Am. Rep. 160, 7 N. W. 386.
74 Conn. 405, 50 Atl. 1019, 1118; Pearce v. Hall, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 209; Webb v. Stone, 24 N. H. 282; Gilman v. Moody, 43 N. H. 259; Goff v. Price, 42 W. Va. 384, 26 S. E. 287.
II Mich. 266; Hogdon v. Shar-mon, 44 N. H. 572; Hurd v. Robinson, 11 Ohio St. 232; Seymour v Darrow, 31 Vt. 122; Vanmeter v. Vanmeter, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 148.
12. Shirras v. Caig, 7 Cranch U. S.) 54, 3 L. Ed. 260; Moses v. Hatfield, 27 S. C. 324, 3 S. E. 538. See Mix v. Cowles, 20 Conn. 420; and post, this section, note 35, and Sec. 637, note 83.
12a. See Lines v. Brandon, 129 Ark. 27, 194 S. W. 867; Lamoille County Sav. Bank Trust Co. v. Belden, 90 Vt. 535, 98 Atl. 1002.
13. Webb v. Stone, 24 N. H. 282; Winchell v. Coney, 54 Conn. 24, 5 Atl. 354; Hill v. Banks, 61 Ccnn. 25, 23 Atl. 712; See 4 Wig-more, Evidence, Sec. 2476.
14. Ante, this section, note 3.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.