Stevens v. Talcott
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. The plaintiff declared, “ in a plea of the case, “ for that whereas, heretofore, to wit, on the 25th day of “February, 1833, certain articles of personal property, to “ wit, one horse, one sleigh and one double harness, belonging to one Anson Downer, had been taken on execu- “ tion against said Downer, and were then about to be sold “ on said execution, at vendue, and the defendant being plain- “ tiff in one of the said executions, and there having been “…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The plaintiff declared, “ in a plea of the case, “ for that whereas, heretofore, to wit, on the 25th day of “February, 1833, certain articles of personal property, to “ wit, one horse, one sleigh and one double harness, belonging to one Anson Downer, had been taken on execu- “ tion against said Downer, and were then about to be sold “ on said execution, at vendue, and the defendant being plain- “ tiff in one of the said executions, and there having been “ theretofore had between the plaintiff and said Downer, cer- “ tain conversations, respecting the said Downer’s selling to “ the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield J.
The court have not been able to perceive . . how the question of variance, attempted to be raised, becomes important under the state of the pleadings presented. The court, indeed, expressed an opinion to the jury, that some such kind of contract, as that set up, was proved beyond question. This alone might lead the jury to infer that there was no necessity that the plaintiff should prove the same contract declared upon, which most undeniably would be necessary under the special counts alone.
But it is to be observed, that this portion of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Noyes, French & Fickett v. ParkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Pettingill v. ElkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878