Barker & Haight v. Estate of Belknap
Supreme Court of Vermont
[IN CHANCERY.] Railroad construction contract; estimates of engineer. Interference of chancery. Practice. Appeal from the court of chancery. *The orators in the present case had a contract with Sewall F. Belknap for the construction of one or more sections of the railroad of the Vermont Central Bail-road Company, for the construction of whose entire road said Belknap, had contracted.
Read the full summary
[IN CHANCERY.] Railroad construction contract; estimates of engineer. Interference of chancery. Practice. Appeal from the court of chancery. *The orators in the present case had a contract with Sewall F. Belknap for the construction of one or more sections of the railroad of the Vermont Central Bail-road Company, for the construction of whose entire road said Belknap, had contracted. The general provisions in the orators’ contract with Belknap were similar to those in Herrick’s contract, for a statement of which, and also of those in the contract between Belknap and the Vermont Central…
1Opinion of the Court
Redfield, Ch. J.
In regard to this case, which is certainly more or less wanting in many of the essential grounds upon which we have finally sustained Herrick’s case, in part, I have, at times, greatly hesitated, whether the bill ought not to be altogether dismissed, as one of the members of the court was, at first, inclined to think as to both cases.
A decree setting aside an award, or judgment, like any decree reforming a contract, as such a decree as here sought always is, is quite in the discretion of the court of chancery, and of this court, on appeal. By discretion, as applied to a…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Lamoille Valley R. R. v. BixbySupreme Court of Vermont · 1885
- Chickering v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Blair v. Ritchie & WardenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901
- Gilmore v. TuttleNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1885
- Norfolk & Western Railroad v. Mills & FairfaxSupreme Court of Virginia · 1895