Kendrick v. Tarbell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Debt on bond: the bond was an arbitration bond, conditioned that defendant should pay to the plaintiff' the award of the arbitrators. The defendant pleaded that it was not his deed; and also on oyer set out the condition of the bond, and pleaded no award. The plaintiff in his replication set out several or a succession of awards; to which the defendant rejoined no legal award. Trial by the jury.
Read the full summary
Debt on bond: the bond was an arbitration bond, conditioned that defendant should pay to the plaintiff' the award of the arbitrators. The defendant pleaded that it was not his deed; and also on oyer set out the condition of the bond, and pleaded no award. The plaintiff in his replication set out several or a succession of awards; to which the defendant rejoined no legal award. Trial by the jury. On the trial the plaintiff read in evidence the bond declared on; its execution being conceded. The plaintiff also read in evidence five awards, which were the successive awards described in his…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redeield,' Ch. J.
I. The controlling question made in this case by defendant is, whether it is competent for the plaintiff to recover in this action the amount of awards, in favor of other parties. The only instance in which any thing is awarded to any other than the plaintiff is in the third and fourth subdivision of the award, in the controversies in the third, betweenJD. Fay & Co., consisting of D. Fay, and Rufus Kendrick, and the defendant, Tarbell, and in the fourth division, between D. Fay & Co., and D. Tarbell & Co., the interest of which, was at…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Thatcher Implement & Mercantile Co. v. BrubakerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- Young v. KinneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1875
- In re L. B. Weisenberger & Co.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1904
- Batchelder Brown v. Reynolds Admx.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1935