Pratt v. Bryant
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered in .the county court, and an auditor was appointed, who reported that the plaintiff presented an account against the defendants, for allowance, for a quantity of wood, in reference to which the facts were as follows. In January, 1841, the plaintiff, being indebted to one Ira Powers, proposed to pay him in wood.
Read the full summary
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered in .the county court, and an auditor was appointed, who reported that the plaintiff presented an account against the defendants, for allowance, for a quantity of wood, in reference to which the facts were as follows. In January, 1841, the plaintiff, being indebted to one Ira Powers, proposed to pay him in wood. Powers said he was indebted to the defendants, and that if they would receive wood from the plaintiff on account of that indebtedness, it would answer to him as well as the money. The plaintiff then went to the defendants’ store, and…
1Opinion of the Court
*337The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redeield, J.
This does not seem to be such a case of fraudulent commixture of goods, as to produce a forfeiture on' the part of the plaintiff. The-rule laid down by Justice Morton, in Ryder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. 298, seems, to us to be the true rule upon this subject, — that if the intermixture were intentional, but bysome mistake of the facts, the property was not lost. That seems to be the present case. The plaintiff supposed he had made a contract of sale; but in fact he had not. This was his innocent mistake. He may therefore recover either his…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Rood v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Moore v. BowmanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1867
- Henderson v. LauckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Cheshire Railroad v. FosterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1871
- James O. Safford & Co. v. GallupSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.