Norton v. Haggett
Vermont Supreme Court
85 A.2d 571, 117 Vt. 130 (1952)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Northfield Savings Bank (Northfield) (defendant) held a note and mortgage on the home of Roy M. and Hazel C. Haggett (defendants). K. E. Norton (plaintiff), who knew the Haggetts, went into Northfield and told a bank clerk that he wanted to “take up” the Haggetts’ note. The clerk asked Norton whether he wanted to pay off the Haggetts’ note, and Norton said yes. The clerk told Norton the outstanding balance on the Haggetts’ note, and Norton paid it. The bank president, when executing the discharge, told Norton that he must be making a lot of money as a junk man “to be paying someone else’s mortgage,” and Norton did not reply. Based on Norton’s statements, Northfield treated the transaction as a discharge of the Haggetts’ debt, not a sale of their note and mortgage. However, Norton had intended to purchase the note and mortgage. The Haggetts had not consented to Norton’s purchase of their note and mortgage. Norton had recently argued with Roy, and Roy believed Norton wished to harm him. After discovering that his payment to Northfield had been treated as a discharge rather than a purchase, Norton filed suit, asserting mutual mistake against Northfield and fraud and conspiracy against both Northfield and the Haggetts. Norton sought restitution. The chancellor dismissed the case, and Norton appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
