Baker v. Central Vermont R. R.
Supreme Court of Vermont
General Assumpsit. Heard on an agreed statement, March Term, 1883, Washington County, Redeield, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The balance due Sept. 19, 1876, was entitled to draw interest from said date to Feb. 11, 1880, and interest from that date; and the defendant is liable for the amount. Vt. dt Can. R. R. Co. v. Yt. Cen.
Read the full summary
General Assumpsit. Heard on an agreed statement, March Term, 1883, Washington County, Redeield, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The balance due Sept. 19, 1876, was entitled to draw interest from said date to Feb. 11, 1880, and interest from that date; and the defendant is liable for the amount. Vt. dt Can. R. R. Co. v. Yt. Cen. R. R. Co., 34 Yt. 65; Sumner v. Beebe, 37 Yt., 562 ; llauxhurst v. llovey, 26 Yt. 544 ; Evarts v. Eason, 11 Yt. 122; Rawlet v. Sand gate, 19 Yt. 620; Cleason v. Briggs, 28 Yt. 135; Allen v.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Taet, J.
The plaintiff contracted with the defendant to do certain work in constructing the Montpelier and White River Railroad. The work was completed in the fall of 1875. The parties could not agree upon the amount due the plaintiff. Rimball was sued and the defendant summoned as trustee on *304the 30th day of May, 1876. On the 19 th dayof September following, the amount due under the contract was adjusted at the sum of fifty-five hundred dollars, as of that date. The following sums have been paid on the claim, viz.: 19th September, 1876, $3,000; 7th…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lyman, Converse & Pomeroy v. OrrSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Sumner v. BeebeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gearhart v. HydeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917
- Oakes v. BuckmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Northfield Trust Co. v. CuttingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1921