Hickok v. Ridley
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of book account. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and auditors appointed; who reported, “That on the 23d day of May, 1842, ‘ the plaintiffs and their attorney, D. A. Smalley, appeared, ‘ and the defendant’s attorney, Mr. Stansbury, also appeared, * and moved a continuance, on the ground that the defend-c ant was out of the state at the time of the service of the ‘ rule, &c.
Read the full summary
This was an action of book account. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and auditors appointed; who reported, “That on the 23d day of May, 1842, ‘ the plaintiffs and their attorney, D. A. Smalley, appeared, ‘ and the defendant’s attorney, Mr. Stansbury, also appeared, * and moved a continuance, on the ground that the defend-c ant was out of the state at the time of the service of the ‘ rule, &c. But as it was not made to appear by any posi- ‘ live proof, the auditors, under the circumstances, did not ‘ feel justified in continuing the said cause.” The auditors’ report…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
There is no good reason why the charge of forty dollars, cash, should not have been allowed to the plaintiffs by the auditors. It is true the money was advanced to the defendant, under an expectation of the parties that it should go as part pay of transportation, thereafter to be performed, and to be adjusted upon the defendant’s rendering his account for such services. This money was not paid to extinguish a subsisting demand, but was to be kept on foot asa subsisting claim against the defendant, and to be the subject of future adjustment…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Strong v. McConnellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bailey v. HarveySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- State v. HenryNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1918