Needham v. McAuley
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, in two counts. The first count- was in common form, for goods sold and delivered, by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, in two counts. The first count- was in common form, for goods sold and delivered, by the plaintiff to the defendant. The second count was as follows : — ■ Also in a like plea of the case, for that whereas, hereto- “ fore, to wit, on the thirteenth day of March, A. D. 1837,]in “ consideration that the plaintiff would, at his, the defendants, “ like special instance and request, sell and deliver to him, “ the defendant, a certain clock, the property of him, the “ the said plaintiff, he, the defendant, then and there under- “ took and faithfully promised the said plaintiff to pay him…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was'delivered by
Collamer, J.
Where there is a general verdict, and one count is insufficient, the judgment, on motion, must be arrested. This has been too often decided in this state to need the repetition of reasons therefor. There was a general verdict, in this case, and the second count states, in substance, that the defendant promised, if the plaintiff would sell and deliver him a certain clock, to pay therefor, but entirely fails to allege that he ever sold or delivered it. This is clearly insufficient. Was this cured by verdict ? \
The law, on this subject, is…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Curtis v. Mutual Benefit Life Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1880
- State v. FreemanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
- Curtis v. BurdickSupreme Court of Vermont · 1876
- Harris v. HarrisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Leigh v. National Hollow Brake Beam Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1907