Mason v. Potter
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and an auditor was appointed, who reported substantially the following facts.
Read the full summary
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and an auditor was appointed, who reported substantially the following facts. That in the fall of 1844, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the manufacture and sale of hat bodies; that the defendant was to furnish the wool for the hat bodies, and to peddle or sell the same after they were manufactured; that he. was to charge nothing for his time while engaged in the sale; that each was to pay one half of the expense of extra labor, wood, and use and wear of the machinery; that plaintiff was to manufacture…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redeield, Ch. J.
I. There can be no doubt the debit side of the plaintiff’s claim, as presented, which for purposes of determining the jurisdiction, has long been regarded as his book, within the meaning of the statute, did exceed $100, and that the county court, therefore had jurisdiction. The fact that the claim was not fully proved before the auditor, or that it was not upon the plaintiff’s book, unless it appeared that it was merely fictitious, would not justify the court in dismissing the case, for want of jurisdiction.
*724II. The auditor, on the case…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ambler v. BradleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1834
- Bowman v. BaileySupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
- Kellogg v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1840
- John T. Griffith & Co. v. Buffum & AinsworthSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Boardman v. KeelerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1829
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Duryea v. WhitcombSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858