Bank of Vergennes - Vergennes, VT

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Reopening
Bank Type: state
Start Date: *
Location: Vergennes, Vermont (44.167, -73.254)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: f176ffbe

Response Measures

None

Description

Article (Dec 20, 1865) refers to a prior suspension of specie payment by the bank. No run or reopening/closure information is given. Many mid-19th-century suspensions were temporary; lacking evidence of permanent failure or receivership, I classify as suspension_reopening as the most likely outcome. Date of suspension is not stated in the article.

Events (1)

1. * Suspension

Cause Details: Article only mentions a suspension of specie payments; no cause given in text.
Newspaper Excerpt: It appears that the plaintiff deposited or sold to the Bank of Vergennes $50 in gold before the suspension of specie payment by the bank
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. December 20, 1865 The Middlebury Register Middlebury, VT

Article from The Middlebury Register, December 20, 1865

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# ADDISON COUNTY COURT. The December Term commenced last week Tuesday. Officers of the Court.—Chief Justice PIERPOINT of the Supreme Court presiding. Assistant Judges.—Hon. EBENEZER H. WEEKS and Hon. EDWIN EVERTS. Sheriff—G. A. Collamer, State's Attorney—H. S. Foote, Clerk—Dugald Stewart, Deputy Clerk—Rufus Wainwright. The first Cause tried was Wetherbee's Executor vs. Keese. Counsel for the Plaintiff.—Hon. G. W. Grandey, Hon. J. W. Stewart and Mr. Hard of Burlington. Counsel for the Defendant.—Hon. G. F. Edmonds, Gov. Dillingham, E. J. Phelps, of Burlington and Mr. Meader of Vergennes. Twenty witnesses were examined by the prosecution and eighteen by the defense; after which Mr. Hard opened the argument by summing up the evidence in a concise and logical speech of about two hours. He was followed by Mr. Phelps who spoke with his usual clearness, vigor and sarcasm. Gov. Dillingham continued the argument with the most eloquent appeals in behalf of the disinherited orphans. After which Mr. Stewart closed the argument in an able manner, most happily showing up the Governor's efforts at rhetorical effect. Each of the pleas were about two hours in length, and and Judge Pierpoint's charge to the jury was more than an hour in duration. The verdict was rendered about 3 o'clock, P. M., on Saturday, that the instrument purporting to be the last will of Joshua Wetherbee was not his will. The length of the trial, the talent employed as counsel, the large number of witnesses, the crowded court room and the eagerness of the listeners, attested the interest felt in the trial, not only by the parties, but by the people generally. The case seems to be this: Mr. Joshua Wetherbee of Ferrisburgh, after having given to each of his two children, Mr. Amos Wetherbee and Mrs. Emily Keese, sundry presents nearly equal and expressed his wish to treat them alike, made a will in 1855 following the same general principal of equality. In 1861 during his last illness he made another will in which the property was not so equally divided. The last instrument was proved before Judge Munsill of the Probate Court, from which Mr. Henry R. Keese took an appeal in behalf of the children of Mrs. Emily Keese, on the ground that Joshua Wetherbee was mentally incapable of making a will at the time the instrument was executed. The whole amount of property belonging to the estate is less than $8000, and the first will gives to Emily's children $1100 more than the last which was not sustained. MONDAY, Dec. 18.—Kirby & Linsley vs. Dyer. Counsel for the Plaintiff.—A. P. Tupper and J. W. Stewart. Counsel for the Defendant.—Nicholson & Ormsbee. The defendant's counsel moved that the plaintiff be non-suited on the ground of mis-joinder; and it was granted. Brown vs. Bank of Vergennes. Counsel for the Plaintiff—Spaulding and Stewart. Counsel for the Defendant—Meader & Phelps. It appears that the plaintiff deposited or sold to the Bank of Vergennes $50 in gold before the suspension of specie payment by the bank, although gold was selling at that time at 1,70, and received in exchange the bills of the bank or greenbacks, and he claimed damages to the amount at which the gold was then selling at premium. The verdict of the jury was in favor of the defendant, throwing the costs on the plaintiff.