James O. Safford & Co. v. Gallup
Supreme Court of Vermont
This cause was tried at the February Term, 1880, Orleans County; Redfield, Chancellor. The bill was dismissed, pro forma, and appeal allowed to the Supreme Court. The facts appear in the opinion. The orators were the owners of the hides and leather, at least to the amount of their money which was expended in the purchase of the hides, and the amount they expended to preserve the leather from injury and fit it for market.
Read the full summary
This cause was tried at the February Term, 1880, Orleans County; Redfield, Chancellor. The bill was dismissed, pro forma, and appeal allowed to the Supreme Court. The facts appear in the opinion. The orators were the owners of the hides and leather, at least to the amount of their money which was expended in the purchase of the hides, and the amount they expended to preserve the leather from injury and fit it for market. Hall v. Williams,• 27 Vt. 405 ; Rideout v. Burton, 27 Vt. 883; 1 Story Eq. 468 and 623 ; Hart v. Ten Ryek, 2 Johns. Oh. 108; Oapron v. Porter, 43 Conn. 383, 390; Pratt v.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Ross, J.
In the original bill the orators set forth the contract of August 1, 1874, by which they agreed to advance to Samuel Smith, of Troy, so much money as they saw fit, with which he was to purchase slaughter hides, and tan them, and send them to Boston to be sold by the orators. The hides were to be the property of the orators. The orators were to receive back the money advanced with interest and commission on the sales, and allow Smith eight cents per pound for buying and tanning. The profit *294or loss arising from tlie transaction was to be shared…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Leonard v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Pratt v. BryantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Hall v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854