Halloran v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action ok Tort for negligence. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1920, Washington County, Chase, .J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for, the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.
1DissentWatson, C. J.
I am unable to agree with the majority of my associates that there was no error in the ruling below, permitting counsel for-plaintiff, when arguing to the jury *277on the question of damages, to say to them to ‘ ‘ consider the value of a dollar today, as compared with what it was.” And in upholding the charge of the court to the same effect.
In law we are compelled to compensate for violated rights in money, and for this purpose to make pecuniary estimates of the value of their violations, the possession of money becomes a hind of legal summum bonum. Terry, Principles of Anglo-American Law, Sec.…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Knox v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Veazie Bank v. FennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Spade v. Lynn & Boston RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Juilliard v. GreenmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Thorington v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.