Legal Opinion

Philbrook v. Belknap

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 15, 1834PublishedCited by 15 opinions

This was an action on book account, referred to auditors In the county court, who found for the defendant, and made the following special report of the facts in the case : “The plaintiff produced the "following account, to wit: ‘ William Belknap to Alfred Philbrook, Dr. 1831, Oct. 1. To labor 5 1-2 months, commencing' 11th April, 1831, and ending about the last day of September following, at $8,00 per month, $44.00.’ The defendant produced no account.

Read the full summary

This was an action on book account, referred to auditors In the county court, who found for the defendant, and made the following special report of the facts in the case : “The plaintiff produced the "following account, to wit: ‘ William Belknap to Alfred Philbrook, Dr. 1831, Oct. 1. To labor 5 1-2 months, commencing' 11th April, 1831, and ending about the last day of September following, at $8,00 per month, $44.00.’ The defendant produced no account. The plaintiff offered himself to testify to his account, to which the defendant objected ; he, the defendant, offering to prove that the labor…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was pronounced by

Pejjslps, J.

— This case comes before us upon a special report of the auditor. It seems, that the auditor, upoií the facts stated in his report, found for the defendant; the county court ' reversed that decision, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. To this the defendant excepted, and the question now is, which of the parties, upon the facts found, is entitled to judgment. An exception is taken to the form of the action, which we do not think well founded. If the plaintiff be entitled to recover at all, the claim becomes a mere claim for services at a…

2Cited by15 opinions

  1. In re Williams' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Andrews & Bros. v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
  3. Raycraft v. JohnstonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
  4. La Du-King Manufacturing Co. v. La DuSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
  5. Murphy v. De HaanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902

10 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