Legal Opinion

Arbuckle v. Hawks

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided April 15, 1848PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered, and an auditor was appointed, who reported that there was due from the defendant to the plaintiff $34,55, and that the-facts were substantially as follows: In 1838 one Gilman T. Eaton, a son-in-law of the defendant, came to live with the defendant and manage his farm, under an agreement, that he should pay the taxes, and have half the produce and the defendant informed the plaintiff of the agreement, and told him, that if he…

Read the full summary

Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered, and an auditor was appointed, who reported that there was due from the defendant to the plaintiff $34,55, and that the-facts were substantially as follows: In 1838 one Gilman T. Eaton, a son-in-law of the defendant, came to live with the defendant and manage his farm, under an agreement, that he should pay the taxes, and have half the produce and the defendant informed the plaintiff of the agreement, and told him, that if he and Eaton had any deal, he must look to Eaton for the pay. Eaton did call upon the plaintiff for labor and services and…

1Opinion of the Court

*541The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, J.

The only question made in regard to the claim upon the'part of the plaintiff is, whether the undertaking of the- defendant was original, or collateral. This may readily be determined by the inquiry, whether the plaintiff ever gave' credit to Eaton, so that he became liable. We think he did not. We think it was a matter well understood by the three, that the credit was given solely to the defendant, and that he was originally liable. The judgment upon the report of the auditor was correct.

There is no controversy, but that the matter claimed…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Pocket v. AlmonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
  2. Waite v. StanleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
  3. Server v. LangSupreme Court of Vermont · 1918
  4. Gaffney v. MegrathWashington Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Bramwell Inv. Co. v. Uggla Et Ux.Utah Supreme Court · 1932

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API