Legal Opinion
Peist v. Richmond
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided October 3, 1923PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPowers, J.
These parties entered into a written contract by the terms of which the plaintiff was to build a house for the defendant for a specified sum, payable in installments as therein provided. For present purposes, it may be stated broadly that one of these installments fell due, and that the defendant wrongfully refused to pay it, and refused to go on under the contract except upon an unwarranted condition. There upon, the plaintiff abandoned the work and brought this action of contract using the common counts as his complaint. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the court granted the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anvil Mining Co. v. HumbleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- McConnell v. Corona City Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Butterfield v. ByronMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Earnshaw v. WhittemoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- White v. Lumiere North American Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1906
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- New Era Homes Corp. v. ForsterNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Schwasnick v. BlandinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
- M. F. A. Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gulf Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1969
- Leo Spear Construction Company, Inc. v. The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York and Brookfield-Baylor, a Joint VentureCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
- Pelletier v. MasseSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.