Drown v. Forrest
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. Plea, tlie general issue with notice of special matter. Trial by jury at the September term, 1890, Powers, J., presiding. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Plea, tlie general issue with notice of special matter. Trial by jury at the September term, 1890, Powers, J., presiding. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts. The plaintiffs sought to recover for a breach of the following written instrument: “Barton, June 19, 1876. “ In consideration of Aaron Drown and O. T. Willard having bought my blacksmith shop, I hereby agree that I will not hereafter practice or carry on the blacksmith business at South Barton as long as said Drown or Willard occupies or carry on that business at said South Barton, except for my own…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ROWELL, J.
As the declaration brings the case within the jurisdiction of the County Court, the mere fact that the testimony did not, was not decisive against jurisdiction. It was necessary to go further, and negative plaintiff’s good faith in bringing the suit, by showing, at least, a probable consciousness on his part that he. was not entitled to recover more than a justice could award. Stafford v. Richardson, 13 Vt. 224; Joyal v. Barney, 20 Vt. 154.
By the Noman law, a new contract between the original contracting parties only that dissolved an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Joyal v. BarneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Spafford v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1841
3Cited by8 opinions
- Turner v. TurnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Peters v. Estate of PoroSupreme Court of Vermont · 1922
- Mellen v. United States Health & Accident InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- Bickford v. Travelers Ins.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1895
- Thomas v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.