Beverwick Brewing Co. v. Oliver
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for the price of lager beer. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1896, Chittenden County, Rowell, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for the price of lager beer. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1896, Chittenden County, Rowell, J., presiding. The deposition of the plaintiffs manager was, in part, to the effect that he understood from the defendant that the lager was to be used by the latter only for legitimate purposes, in the manufacture of a light hop beer, and that the arrangement was that it should be shipped under the direction (L. W.) to save the defendant “the necessity of going into court and satisfying it that such lager was intended for a legal use.” Each order constituted a…
1Opinion of the CourtMunson, J.
The manager of the plaintiff corporation deposes that the lager beer for which recovery is sought was sold and delivered to the defendant in Albany, New York, on orders received there from time to time by letter or telegram. But it further appears from his deposition that before any order was sent he had a conversation with the defendant at Burlington, in this State, in regard to orders which might thereafter be given; and the deposition seems fairly to mean, and is construed by counsel to mean, that the orders in question were sent pursuant to what was then said. In that conversation,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hobart v. YoungSupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
- Starace v. RossiSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Backman v. WrightSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Backman v. MusseySupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
3Cited by4 opinions
- P. Ballantine & Sons v. FennSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Bacon v. F. W. Hunt & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1900
- Brent v. Chas. H. Lilly Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1913
- In re FennCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910