Bailey v. Manley
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for the price of a horse. Plea, the general issue. Heard on report of a referee at the June Term, 1904, Windsor County, Start, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.. The defendant’s notice “that the mare was at his place in Dummerston, and subject to his order,” was not a sufficient tender.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the price of a horse. Plea, the general issue. Heard on report of a referee at the June Term, 1904, Windsor County, Start, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.. The defendant’s notice “that the mare was at his place in Dummerston, and subject to his order,” was not a sufficient tender. Warner v. Wheeler, i D. Chip. 159; Gates v. Bliss, 43 Vt. 299) ' Gilman v. Bingham, 43 Vt. 41o1; Waters Heater Co. v. Mansfield & Stimson, 48 Vt. 378; Boughton v. Stcmdish, 48 Vt. 594. Taking the’ mare home did not constitute an absolute…
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, J.
It is found that at the time of the sale of the mare at auction the plaintiff represented her as sound and .all right, and the defendant then understood that she was so represented. During the auction and before the sale of the mare the auctioneer several times announcd that “everything should be as represented or 1101 sale.” These statements were not made with reference to any specific article, nor was any specific article excepted therefrom. They therefore had the same application to the mare as they did to other property. It is also found that the mare was sometimes lame, caused by “a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barrett v. TylerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
3Cited by2 opinions
- Land Finance Corp. v. Sherwin Electric Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1929
- Bombardier v. GoodrichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1920