Reynolds v. Hooker
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on the bill, answer, master’s report and exceptions thereto, at the December Term, 1903, Orange County, Munson, Chancellor. Decree dismissing the bill with costs. The orator appealed. The opinion states the facts. In the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, parol evidence was not admissible to show that neither option was to take effect unless both were accepted.
Read the full summary
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on the bill, answer, master’s report and exceptions thereto, at the December Term, 1903, Orange County, Munson, Chancellor. Decree dismissing the bill with costs. The orator appealed. The opinion states the facts. In the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake, parol evidence was not admissible to show that neither option was to take effect unless both were accepted. Abbott v. Choate, 47 Vt. 53; Morse v. Low, 44 Vt. 561; Perkins v. Young, 16 Gray 389; Ripley v. Page, 12 Vt. 353; Dixon v. Blondín, 58 Vt. 689; Isaacs v. Bikinis, 11 Vt. 679; Allen, v. Furbish, 4…
1Opinion of the Court
Start J.
The defendant, being the owner of twenty-three shares of the capital stock of the Bradford Electric Company, and of a grist-mill and water privileges which furnished the power for the Bradford Electric Company’s lighting plant, was asked by the orator if he would sell his stock in the Bradford Electric Company. The defendant replied, that, if he sold his stock, he should want to sell his grist-mill with its water power. The orator said he wished to purchase the water power, and asked the defendant if he would give an option on the stock and real estate. The defendant replied that he…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Taylor v. GilmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Redfield v. GleasonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1888
- Wilbur v. PriorSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- Adams v. SmilieSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877