Pictorial League v. Nelson
Supreme Court of Vermont
General and Special Assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court in the City Court of Burlington, October 3, 1896. This is a written contract. Benj. Contr. 10, 11; Daggett v. Johnson, 49 Vt. 345. The admission of parol evidence to prove an additional contemporaneous agreement by the agent was a plain violation of the settled rule.
Read the full summary
General and Special Assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Trial by court in the City Court of Burlington, October 3, 1896. This is a written contract. Benj. Contr. 10, 11; Daggett v. Johnson, 49 Vt. 345. The admission of parol evidence to prove an additional contemporaneous agreement by the agent was a plain violation of the settled rule. Bradley v. Bentley, 8 Vt. 243; Gtile tt v. Ballou, 29 Vt. 296; Abbott v. Choate, 47 Vt. 53; Gates v. Moore, 51 Vt. 222; Benedict v. Cox, 52 Vt. 247; Morse v. Low, 44 Vt. 561; Dtxon v. Blondín, 58 Yt. 689; Smith v. Burton, 59 Vt. 408. Testimony that the agent…
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, C. J.
The action is to recover for cuts furnished in accordance with a written contract dated April 24, 1894, and for a breach of the contract by the defendant.
The contract.is in the form of an order, and is as follows: “The Pictorial League,” etc. “Gentlemen: Please furnish the undersigned with one cut and reading matter semimonthly to illustrate the Furniture and Draperies business in the City of Burlington, State of Vermont, only, for the term of one year from commencement, for which I agree to pay to your order at New York, the sum of one dollar and *164postage for each cut, at the end of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Daggett & Graves v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- Aiken v. KennisonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
3Cited by3 opinions
- Land Finance Corp. v. Sherwin Electric Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1929
- Aetna Chemical Co. v. Spaulding & Kimball Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Nelson & Daniels v. GodfreySupreme Court of Vermont · 1902