Gillett v. Brewster
Supreme Court of Vermont
General assumpsit. Heard on the report of a referee at the September Term, 1889, Munson, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. The plaintiff had employed the defendant for two successive winters to cut and draw logs for him at an agreed price per thousand, and had paid him various sums from time to time.
Read the full summary
General assumpsit. Heard on the report of a referee at the September Term, 1889, Munson, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. The plaintiff had employed the defendant for two successive winters to cut and draw logs for him at an agreed price per thousand, and had paid him various sums from time to time. At the end of the second winter the defendant brought suit to •recover the balance due, and the plaintiff paid him two hundred dollars “ on account.” Subsequently, becoming satisfied that •there was in part an overpayment, he brought this suit for the excess. The…
1Opinion of the Court
*313The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, Ch. J.
The only question presented for our consideration in this case is, whether an overpayment, voluntarily made, through the mistake or negligence of the party making the same, and not induced by the fraud of the party receiving it, can be recovered back without a previous notice and demand.
We regard the case of Bishop v. Brown, 51 Vt. 330, decisive of the question. It is there said : “ If the mistake was induced by the fraud of the party receiving the same, and he had knowledge of the overpayment at the time, or if he had subsequently…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bishop v. BrownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1879
3Cited by1 opinion
- Turner Falls Lumber Co. v. BurnsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1899