Legal Opinion

Dyar Sales & MacHinery Co. v. Bleiler

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided October 2, 1934PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSlaok, J.

The plaintiff assembles and sells road machinery. The defendant had been in its employ as traveling salesman two years prior to January 2, 1932. On that day they entered into a contract in writing, by the terms of which defendant was to cover the State of Vermont as salesman for plaintiff and not engage directly or indirectly in the sale of any other road machinery than that sold by it. The contract provided that either party could terminate it upon seven days’ notice in writing. It also provided that: ‘ ‘ Should this contract be terminated by either party for any reason whatsoever, the said…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Granger v. CravenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  2. Harrison v. Glucose Sugar Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1902
  3. Eureka Laundry Co. v. LongWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Deuerling v. City Baking Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
  5. Walker Coal & Ice Co. v. WestermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. May v. YoungSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
  2. Scott v. General Iron & Welding Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
  3. Briggs v. ButlerOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Western Maryland Dairy, Inc. v. ChenowithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1942
  5. Torrington Creamery, Inc. v. DavenportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API