Allen v. Thrall
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, commenced by tbe plaintiff against Philander Salmon and Reuben R. Thrall. As to the defendant Salmon, the return of service on the writ in said action was non est inventus, et nulla Iona; and the suit thereupon proceeded against the defendant Thrall alone.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, commenced by tbe plaintiff against Philander Salmon and Reuben R. Thrall. As to the defendant Salmon, the return of service on the writ in said action was non est inventus, et nulla Iona; and the suit thereupon proceeded against the defendant Thrall alone. The plaintiff’s declaration contained three counts, two of which were on a special contract made by the defendants Salmon and Thrall with the plaintiff on the 25th of October, 1844, for the manufacture by the plaintiff for the said defendants, of one hundred straw cutters, and the other count was the common count in indebitatus…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, J.
The first objection the defendant relies ón is that the plaintiff can not recover under the special count for the unfinished machines not delivered, for the reason that the proof did not support the declaration. It appears by the declaration and the written contract in evidence, that the knives were to be made of cast steel, or cast steel with iron welded upon the sides, and that the machines were to be dovetailed together in a good workmanlike manner. The declaration alleges that the work was done (up to the time the plaintiff was prevented by the defendants’ neglect,) according to the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Curtis v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
- Manning Manufacturing Co. v. Miller Bros.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1914