Foot & Hodges v. Rutland & Whitehall Railroad
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. The auditor reported that the plaintiffs were attorneys, and that their account was for professional services and attendant expenses rendered and incurred under the following circumstances: In 1849, shortly after the defendants organized as a corporation, they entered into a contract with R. & Gr.
Read the full summary
Book Account. The auditor reported that the plaintiffs were attorneys, and that their account was for professional services and attendant expenses rendered and incurred under the following circumstances: In 1849, shortly after the defendants organized as a corporation, they entered into a contract with R. & Gr. L. Schuyler, by which the latter agreed to construct the whole line of the defendants’ railroad, at a certain price per mile, and it was provided therein that the Schuylers should bear the whole expense of constructing such railroad, including both land damages and all law suits and…
1Opinion of the Court
Aldis J.
The questions which are presented to us for cofisideration in this case arise upon an auditor’s report. The auditor has allowed all the items of the plaintiffs’ account as charged* and then proceeds to set forth the facts which he finds proved in the case, without in terms submitting any question of law to the court. It is claimed that the facts as found do not justify the conclusion of the auditor in this respect, viz: that no privity of contract is established between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
It appears that by a contract between the defendants and JR. & G-. L. Schuyler,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Garmany v. LawtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- H. C. Jaquith Co. v. Shumway's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1908
- Edmunds Bros. v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1921
- Adelaide E. Buck v. Troy Aqueduct Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- Hardwick Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. DrenanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.