Esty v. Read
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book account. Thu plaintiffs’ account was (C for one set of gravestones, fifteen dollars,” in reference to wbieli thé auditor reported the following facts: About the first of July, 1853, the plaintiffs through their agent Ezek Atwood, entered into a contract with the defendant to furnish him a set of gravestones to be erected at the grave of Mrs. Luke T. Barber, in Wardsboro; and it was agreed between the parties that said stones were, to be like or should match a set of…
Read the full summary
Book account. Thu plaintiffs’ account was (C for one set of gravestones, fifteen dollars,” in reference to wbieli thé auditor reported the following facts: About the first of July, 1853, the plaintiffs through their agent Ezek Atwood, entered into a contract with the defendant to furnish him a set of gravestones to be erected at the grave of Mrs. Luke T. Barber, in Wardsboro; and it was agreed between the parties that said stones were, to be like or should match a set of stone then standing at the grave of the husband of Mrs. Barber who had previously deceased, and the defendant was to pay…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, Ch. J.
The report of the auditor certainly puts the case upon the ground that the defendant gave no notice to the plaintiffs of repudiating the sale, either immediate or in a reasonable time. Unless, then, we could say that the testimony in the case had no tendency to prove such facts, the finding of the auditor will be conclusive of the facts found. Although there is probably considerable ground of difference of opinion in regard to whether the testimony did tend to show a repudiation of the sale, we think it would be difficult to come to the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Temple Brothers v. MunnettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- R. C. Bowers Granite Co. v. Drew Daniels Granite Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1917