Hartford Sorghum Manufacturing Co. v. Brush
Supreme Court of Vermont
General assumpsit, to recover the price of a patent sugar évaporator. Plea, general issue, and trial by jury, September term, 1870, Barrett, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
General assumpsit, to recover the price of a patent sugar évaporator. Plea, general issue, and trial by jury, September term, 1870, Barrett, J., presiding. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that they by their agent, Chase, sold defendant the evaporator, on the condition that if it, when set and operated aacording to the company’s printed directions on pages fourteen and fifteen of plaintiff’s circular, failed to operate in accordance with the recommendations of the company contained on pages four and five of saicl circular, the defendant was not to keep and pay for it. If it did when so…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Wheeler, J.
This is an action founded upon contract. The jury have found a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, by the terms of which the defendant was to take an evaporator of the plaintiff upon trial, and pay for it if he liked it, the plaintiff to take it back if he did not like it. The plaintiff cannot recover except for a breach of the contract. He only seeks to recover for such a breach as would entitle him to recover the price of the evaporator.
The trial upon which the defendant took the evaporator was to be had for the purpose of…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Livesley v. JohnstonOregon Supreme Court · 1904
- Daggett & Graves v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- Exhaust Ventilator Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- McClure Bros. v. BriggsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
- Campbell Printing-Press Co. v. ThorpU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1888
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.