Smith v. Pettingill
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an appeal from a decree of the chancellor, dismissing the orator’s bill. The defendants severally answered, and the answers, were traversed.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the chancellor, dismissing the orator’s bill. The defendants severally answered, and the answers, were traversed. From the bill and answers, it appeared, among other things,— That, in November, 1839, the orator executed to the defendant, Pettingill, a lease of a certain farm in Milton for two years from the first of April then next; that it was stipulated in said lease “ that, in case, there should not be, in £ either year of said lime, in the estimation of said Pettingill, £ hay and coarse fodder enough raised upon said premises, ‘ by saving the whole of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
It is not necessary to go into the question of the construction of the contract, as, in any view which can be taken of the case, the plaintiff must have an ample remedy at law, either in trespass for entering upon his land and cutting hay in a manner, and for a purpose, not within the fair construction of the contract; or else, for a violation of the contract, in cutting more hay than was necessary for the purposes for which the license was given, or for failing to apply it to the purposes therein contemplated.
But a court of chancery will…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Echelkamp v. SchraderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Ferrisburgh Realty Investors v. SchumacherSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
- Gerety v. PoitrasSupreme Court of Vermont · 1966
- Burnham v. KemptonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
- Smith v. ThibaultSupreme Court of Vermont · 1961