McNeal Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Inman Bros.
Supreme Court of Vermont
General Assumpsit. Heard upon tbe report of a commissioner at the March term, 1896, Rutland County, Taft, J., presiding. The contract was between the trustee and the defendants, the work was performed by the defendants and the pay was due to them. There was no notice of any assignment. Frank D. White and Henry L. Clark for the claimant. While the contract was taken in the name of the defendants they were really agents, of the claimant by whom the work was entirely performed.
Read the full summary
General Assumpsit. Heard upon tbe report of a commissioner at the March term, 1896, Rutland County, Taft, J., presiding. The contract was between the trustee and the defendants, the work was performed by the defendants and the pay was due to them. There was no notice of any assignment. Frank D. White and Henry L. Clark for the claimant. While the contract was taken in the name of the defendants they were really agents, of the claimant by whom the work was entirely performed. The debt was due to the claimant, not to the defendants. Bartlett y. Woodward, 46 Yt. 100; Davis v. Willey, 57 Vt. 125;…
1Opinion of the CourtRowell, J.
The defendants contracted with the city of Rutland, the trustee, for laying water-pipe. They had not sufficient means to enable them to perform the contract, but *182expected to. obtain means as they subsequently did, but the city did not know it. After the contract was made, but before work was begun under it, they induced Mr. Foote to join them in the undertaking, and to advance the necessary means, on certain terms as to sharing in the profits. To that end the defendants and Foote agreed to organize a corporation consisting of themselves, to be called the Inman Brothers Construction Company,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bartlett v. WoodwardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873
3Cited by1 opinion
- Willard v. WingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897