Ware River Railroad v. Vibbard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in EQUITY against the partnership of Vibbard, Foote & Company, the partnership of Jay Cooke & Company, George L. Brastow and Gardner Prouty, to compel the defendants to transfer and deliver to the plaintiffs 4190 iron rails lying in a United States bonded warehouse in Charlestown, to obtain the possession of which, the plaintiff had, as the bill alleged, sued out a writ of replevin, giving a bond in twice the value of the property, upon which the officer had returned…
Read the full summary
Bill in EQUITY against the partnership of Vibbard, Foote & Company, the partnership of Jay Cooke & Company, George L. Brastow and Gardner Prouty, to compel the defendants to transfer and deliver to the plaintiffs 4190 iron rails lying in a United States bonded warehouse in Charlestown, to obtain the possession of which, the plaintiff had, as the bill alleged, sued out a writ of replevin, giving a bond in twice the value of the property, upon which the officer had returned that he had replevied the rails and delivered them to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had receipted for them; but it…
1Opinion of the Court
Wells, J.*
The plaintiff entered into a contract with N. A. Smith & Co. to construct its road, furnish all the materials, and deliver possession thereof finished and complete, ready for use, within two years from September 1, 1870. The contract was dated September 9, 1870. The consideration agreed on was $1,200,000, to be paid as follows, namely, $500,000 in first mortgage bonds of the road, and $700,000 in shares of its stock, both at par; $100,000 of the stock to be retained as a margin for security of performance. The bonds and' the rest of the stock were to be delivered monthly, in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. BagwellSupreme Court of Florida · 1882
- New Haven & Northampton Co. v. CampbellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Sheppard v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Leahy v. Lobdell, Farwell & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897