Dyer v. Graves
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit in a special count and the common counts. The case was referred and the referee reported the facts substantially as follows: On and previous to March 31st, 1862, Augustus Graves, the father of the defendant, was the owner of a farm in Salisbury, situate partly on the east and partly on the west side of the Rutland and Burlington railroad, and bounded on the west by Otter Creek.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit in a special count and the common counts. The case was referred and the referee reported the facts substantially as follows: On and previous to March 31st, 1862, Augustus Graves, the father of the defendant, was the owner of a farm in Salisbury, situate partly on the east and partly on the west side of the Rutland and Burlington railroad, and bounded on the west by Otter Creek. The ■defendant resided with his father upon the farm, and had made a parol arrangement with his father that he might have the farm for $10,000., provided the defendant could make sale of enough of the farm to…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
This is an action of assumpsit in a special count, and the common money counts, in which the plaintiff claims to recover upon a contract with the defendant, for the breach of a guaranty made by the defendant, as to the quantity of a certain parcel of land. The plaintiff places his right of recovery upon the ground of the contract for the purchase of real estate, of which said guaranty constituted a part; which contract was by parol.
As the case does not show that the defendant had any of the purchase money that was paid for the property, there is no ground for recovery under the count for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- White v. MillerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Ascutney Bank v. McK OrmsbySupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Ballarb v. BondSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Davis v. FarrSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Smith v. ChurchSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
3Cited by3 opinions
- Andrews v. BroughtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Dominion Oil Co. v. PouCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Personette v. PrymeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1881