Legal Opinion
Cooley v. Hatch
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided May 7, 1924PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, C. J.
When this ease was here before (91 Vt. 128, 99 Atl. 784) the record showed that prior to the making of the agreement in issue, the plaintiff had an oral contract (hereinafter called the first contract) with defendant Hatch and one Borden who were partners, when it was made, for the erection of a pump and engine in Shipyard Bay, and the conveyance of the lots in question to the plaintiff; that within the pendency of this contract the partnership was dissolved and Hatch refused to permit the plaintiff to carry out the contract which the partner Borden had made for the firm; and that to effect…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Townsend v. VanderwerkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Williams v. MorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Babcock & Russell v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Riggles v. ErneySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Fay v. OliverSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lariviere v. LarocqueSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933
- Troy v. HanifinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1974
- Crawford v. FarringtonVermont Superior Court · 2011
- Foster A. MacEdward v. Northern Electric Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Foster A. MacEdward v. Northern Electric Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979