Smith v. Coolidge
Supreme Court of Vermont
General assumpsit. Heard upon the report of a referee at the September term, 1895, Windham county, Tyler, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. The action was for the recovery of a balance due the plaintiff on open account. It appeared that the plaintiff in 1888 was a general merchant doing business in South Londonderry, and so remained down to the time of the hearing.
Read the full summary
General assumpsit. Heard upon the report of a referee at the September term, 1895, Windham county, Tyler, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. The action was for the recovery of a balance due the plaintiff on open account. It appeared that the plaintiff in 1888 was a general merchant doing business in South Londonderry, and so remained down to the time of the hearing. The defendants, Coolidge and Batchelder, were in 1888 manufacturers and dealers in confectionery in Brattleboro, under the style of F. L. Batchelder & Co. In September, 1888, the defendant Coolidge…
1Opinion of the CourtMunson, J.
The referee reports that the defendant purchased of the plaintiff a quantity of maple sugar, and agreed to pay for it in confectionery, to be delivered to the plaintiff at South Londonderry, at such times and in such quantities as the plaintiff should thereafter order. It is also found, in regard to certain shipments of confectionery, that the price and quality of the goods were satisfactory to the plaintiff. *519It is evident from these findings that a price was put upon the maple sugar and that the amount was to be paid in confectionery at the current rates. So the case presented is that of a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Perry v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Wilkins v. StevensSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
- Kent v. BowkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865
3Cited by4 opinions
- Emack v. HughesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1902
- Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. RoquemoreCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1909
- Anders v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Hamil v. FlowersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913