White v. White
Supreme Court of Vermont
Bill in equity. Heard upon the report of a master at the September term, 1895, Chittenden county. Taft, chancellor, decreed for the orators. The defendant appeals. The orator’s election to prosecute his suit before the commissioners is a bar to his right to maintain this suit for a specific performance. Hartland v. Hackett> 57 Vt. 98.
1Opinion of the CourtRowell, J.
This is a bill for the specific performance of an agreement to devise certain houses, or rather, not to-defeat a devise thereof already made. The essential facts are these: The orator, Henry S. White, and his father, Hiram S. White, were partners in business for many years. Dissolution of the firm was followed by serious disagreement between them concerning their partnership affairs, each claiming that the other was largely indebted to him on account thereof. Finally, in September, 1892, Hiram sued his son in respect of them, demanding large damages, and the .suit was duly entered in court. .…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fowler v. . Bowery Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Moller v. . TuskaNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Davis v. CallowayIndiana Supreme Court · 1868
- Sanger v. WoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1818
- Farwell v. MyersMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wesley v. DiamondSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Holbrook v. J. J. Quinlan & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Waite v. StanleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Gardner v. Gauthier Et Ux.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1928
- Taplin & Rowell v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.