Legal Opinion

Harris v. Howard's Estate

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 15, 1884PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Heard on referee’s report, March Term, 1883, Rowelu, •!., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The referee allowed two witnesses, P. H. Rutter and O. S. Howard, to testify that, about the same time that the plaintiff charged the intestate $1 per day for the use of his horse, he-charged them nothing for the use of the same horse. plaintiff’s specifications : Me. A. O. Howard, 1872. To E. D. Harris, Dr. July 22d. To use of my horse 14 days, - - - $14 00 1876. May 12th.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Taft, J.

I. The testimony of Butter and Howard should have been excluded. The fact that the plaintiff charged them nothing for the use of his horse was not evidence that he charged the intestate nothing. The making of a contract cannot be shown by the evidence of other contemporaneous ones. Phelps v. Conant, 30 Vt. 277; Walworth v. Barron, 54 Vt. 677. The rule in Eastman v. Premo, 49 Vt. 355, does not apply. For the purpose of showing a fraudulent intent, on the part of the

*697defendant, in ¡the purchase of property, evidence of other similar fraudulent…

2Cases cited4 opinions

Phelps, Dodge & Co. v. C. B. Conant & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1858
Eastman v. PremoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
Hodge v. ManleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
Walworth v. BarronSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881

3Cited by4 opinions

In Re Garceau's PetitionSupreme Court of Vermont · 1965
Farmer v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1918
Hicks' Estate v. BlanchardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1888
Welch & Darling v. RickerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896