Cummings v. Blaisdell
Supreme Court of Vermont
General assumpsit. The case was referred, and that portion of the report essential to be stated is in substance as follows : On the 12th day of August, 1867, Alonzo C. Blaisdell of the one part, and Patrick Cummings and Francis Pecor of the other part, entered into a written agreement, duly executed, by which Cummings and Pecor agreed to lay the stone work and certain brick work fully specified, in a block which Blaisdell was about to erect, Blaisdell to furnish the…
Read the full summary
General assumpsit. The case was referred, and that portion of the report essential to be stated is in substance as follows : On the 12th day of August, 1867, Alonzo C. Blaisdell of the one part, and Patrick Cummings and Francis Pecor of the other part, entered into a written agreement, duly executed, by which Cummings and Pecor agreed to lay the stone work and certain brick work fully specified, in a block which Blaisdell was about to erect, Blaisdell to furnish the material, and to pay them two dollars and fifty cents per yard for the stone work and five dollars and fifty cents per thousand…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Peck, J.
In this action of general assumpsit, the plaintiff seeks to recover a balance due for labor in laying stone and brick at a certain price per yard and per thousand, as specified in a written contract with the defendant. The only question is whether the suit is properly brought in the name of the plaintiff alone, or whether Francis Pecor should have been joined as co-plaintiff. The contract was originally made between the plaintiff and Pecor of the one part, and the defendant of the other part. It was competent for the parties by parol to convert…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ambler v. BradleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1834
- Smith v. FosterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
3Cited by2 opinions
- Banks v. De WittOhio Supreme Court · 1884
- Chapin v. LongworthOhio Supreme Court · 1877