Douglass & Varnum v. Village of Morrisville
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for labor done and materials furnished in the construction of a concrete dam with its appurtenant steel pen-stock. Plea, the general issue with notice. Trial by jury at the June Term, 1911, Lamoille County, Miles, J., presiding.’ Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. Defendant excepted. The opinion’ fully states the case. The diagrams referred to in the opinion are shown on the following page.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for labor done and materials furnished in the construction of a concrete dam with its appurtenant steel pen-stock. Plea, the general issue with notice. Trial by jury at the June Term, 1911, Lamoille County, Miles, J., presiding.’ Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. Defendant excepted. The opinion’ fully states the case. The diagrams referred to in the opinion are shown on the following page. Plaintiffs were obligated by the written contract of July 2, 1906, and the specifications and plans thereunder, to furnish and do all that they did in excavating and filling the “pocket,”…
1Dissent
Taylor,
dissenting. I am unable to bring myself to the view entertained by the majority as to the crucial question in this ease, viz.: Whether there is such an ambiguity in the contract as opens the door to parol evidence of the intention of the parties. I purpose briefly to state my position on this question alone.
The majority hold that no ambiguity appears on the face of the contract, but adopt the plaintiffs’ claim that a latent ambiguity was raised by. extrinsic evidence in the provision of the specifications that “the lump sum bid must cover the total expense of securing a proper…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Patch v. KeelerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856