Legal Opinion

Morey v. Homan

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 15, 1838PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Assumpsit. The plaintiff declared that on the 27th day of January, 1833, in consideration that the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendant, would buy of him, the defendant, a certain time piece for the sum of eighteen dollars, he, the defendant, undertook, and then and there faithfully promised to the plaintiff that the said time piece should keep good and accurate time for. the term of ninety days from said sale, and if it did not so keep time, the…

Read the full summary

Assumpsit. The plaintiff declared that on the 27th day of January, 1833, in consideration that the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendant, would buy of him, the defendant, a certain time piece for the sum of eighteen dollars, he, the defendant, undertook, and then and there faithfully promised to the plaintiff that the said time piece should keep good and accurate time for. the term of ninety days from said sale, and if it did not so keep time, the defendant was to furnish one that would so keep time, if the plaintiff should well use the time piece ; and the plaintiff…

1Opinion of the Court

Redfield. J.

In this case the defendant insists there is a variance between the contract adduced in evidence, and the declaration : — that the qualification “ if well used” in the contract is applied to the first time piece furnished, and in the declaration only to the one subsequently to be furnished ; but the court think that, without doubt, the contract was intended to express a stipulation on the part of the plaintiff to use each and every time piece he should receive of the defendant well. The phraseology of the contract is very loose and indefinite, but such must be its only rational…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Rea v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1885
  2. Cribben v. CallaghanIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Parker v. ClaytonIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Ammel v. NoonarSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878
  5. Construction Information Co. v. CassSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1901

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API