Boyle v. Parker
Supreme Court of Vermont
General assumpsit. Pleas, the general issue, payment, and offset. The case was referred, and the referee reported the following facts: “ In April, 1871, the parties entered into a contract that the plaintiff should work for the defendant as a blacksmith, at Jericho, for one year; that the defendant should pay for such service the sum of §2 per day, and furnish the plaintiff a house and garden.
Read the full summary
General assumpsit. Pleas, the general issue, payment, and offset. The case was referred, and the referee reported the following facts: “ In April, 1871, the parties entered into a contract that the plaintiff should work for the defendant as a blacksmith, at Jericho, for one year; that the defendant should pay for such service the sum of §2 per day, and furnish the plaintiff a house and garden. The plaintiff commenced work under said contract on the 20th of April, 1871, and continued to labor for the defendant until some time in the month of September following, when he left the employ of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.
The development and application of the law of the subject in Patnote v. Sanders, 41 Vt. 66, render needless any extended treatment of it in deciding the present case. The plaintiff before leaving apprised the defendant of his intention to leave, and of the reason for so doing. It seems to us that the report shows that not only the defendant did not deny the existence of the reason, nor make any intimation of objection to the plaintiff’s leaving, but gave the plaintiff warrantable ground for “ supposing that the defendant consented thereto.”…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Patnote v. SandersSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Rogers v. SteeleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bast v. ByrneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Bean v. BunkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895
- Merrill v. FishSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895