Bliss v. Allard
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. The auditor reported that plaintiff let his farm to defendant for one year from April 1, 1868 upon shares ; that the lease was not in writing, but that it appeared that it was agreed, among other things not material to be stated, that the defendant was to “ do all the work of running the farm that defendant relied upon the Statute of Limitations as a defence, relative to which the only evidence introduced was a letter from defendant to plaintiff, dated…
Read the full summary
Book Account. The auditor reported that plaintiff let his farm to defendant for one year from April 1, 1868 upon shares ; that the lease was not in writing, but that it appeared that it was agreed, among other things not material to be stated, that the defendant was to “ do all the work of running the farm that defendant relied upon the Statute of Limitations as a defence, relative to which the only evidence introduced was a letter from defendant to plaintiff, dated September 5, 1870, which is sufficiently stated in the opinion, and upon which the plaintiff relied as an acknowledgment or…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
It does not appear by the report, of the auditor, that any defence was made on the trial before him except the Statute of Limitations. Hence, we infer that the defendant assented to the trial and adjudication by the auditor, of the claims growing out of the lease of the plaintiff’^ farm to him. This is to be treated as a waiver of any objection that might otherwise have been made to the adjudication of said claims on account of the form of action.
The evidence introduced by the plaintiff to take his claims out of the Statute of Limitations, was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hunter v. Kittredge's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Blake v. ParlemanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1841
3Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. EdmondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Valiquette v. Clark Bros. Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- Big Diamond Milling Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919