Woodbury Granite Co. v. Mulliken & Gibson
Supreme Court of Vermont
General assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March term, 1892, Washington county,' Thompson, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants except. The plaintiff sought to recover the purchase price of certain granite alleged to have been sold to the defendants personally and delivered, at their request, to the Ryegate Granite Works.
Read the full summary
General assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March term, 1892, Washington county,' Thompson, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants except. The plaintiff sought to recover the purchase price of certain granite alleged to have been sold to the defendants personally and delivered, at their request, to the Ryegate Granite Works. The plaintiff was the owner of a granite quarry situated in Woodbury, and was engaged in the operation of this quarry in the year 1888. Its only stockholders were Chas. A. Watson, who was president, one Voodry, who was…
1Opinion of the CourtTyler, J.
It appeared that on December 10th, 1888, Charles A. Watson, Lewis W. Voodry and Alfred E. Watson were the only stockholders in the plaintiff company; that they constituted its board of directors ; that Charles A. was president, Lewis W. vice-president and superintendent and Alfred E. clerk and treasurer.
The plaintiff claimed and its evidence tended to show that it sold the granite described in its specification on December 10, 1888, to the defendants individually by oral agreement, and by their directions delivered it to the Ryegate Granite Works.
The defendants claimed and their evidence…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Blaisdell & Barron v. DavisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1900