Stanford v. Bates
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered, and an auditor was appointed, who reported, that he found due to the plaintiff $11,28, and also reported, that, upon the trial before him, the plaintiff offered to prove, by his own testimony, as admissions of the defendant, a conversation between himself and the defendant, after the writ was served, and when the defendant was endeavoring to effect a compromise, or settlement, with the plaintiff, to avoid a law suit, and that…
Read the full summary
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered, and an auditor was appointed, who reported, that he found due to the plaintiff $11,28, and also reported, that, upon the trial before him, the plaintiff offered to prove, by his own testimony, as admissions of the defendant, a conversation between himself and the defendant, after the writ was served, and when the defendant was endeavoring to effect a compromise, or settlement, with the plaintiff, to avoid a law suit, and that this testimony was objected to by the defendant, but admitted by the auditor. The county court, December Term, 1849, —…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Poland, J.
The case of Reed et al. v. Talford, 10 Vt. 568, establishes the doctrine, that, in an action on book account, a party may testify to the admission of the other party.
It is objected, however, in the present case, that the defendant’s admission (to which the plaintiff was permitted to testify) was made after the commencement of the suit, and when the defendant was endeavoring to make a compromise, or settlement, with the plaintiff, in order to avoid a law suit. It is now well settled, that a mere offer, or proposition, made by a party to his…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hyde v. StoneNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Reed v. TalfordSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
3Cited by3 opinions
- Holt v. Great Eastern Casualty Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1918
- Doon v. RaveySupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- Holmes v. TrumanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1895