Burdick v. Champlain Glass Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
This case came up from the county court, on the following bill of exceptions: “ This was an action of assumpsit; plea, general issue, “and trial by the court.
Read the full summary
This case came up from the county court, on the following bill of exceptions: “ This was an action of assumpsit; plea, general issue, “and trial by the court. Plaintiff, among other things, “ gave evidence tending to show that on the day of “Nov. 1834, he paid to one Sewell $143,00, but showed “ no authority from the company for the payment except in “ the following manner : Sewell had subscribed for stock “ in the company, under some agreement that he was to be “ let off and the money refunded, if he chose. He elected “ to have the money refunded, and a number of the stock- “ holders divided…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Ch. J.
The case was tried in the county court on an issue joined to the court. The whole evidence, on which the court rendered judgment, is stated, and if not sufficient in law to warrant a recovery, the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff. To maintain this action for the money paid to Sewell, it should appear that it *21was paid at the request of the company, by direction of . . . . . - their authorized agent, or that it was paid for their benefit; neither of which appears from the evidence detailed. It is of some importance to know by whom the agreement with Sewell was…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Mersereau v. LewisNew York Supreme Court · 1840