Ammel v. Noonar
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. Pleas, general issue, payment, and accord and satisfaction. Trial by jury, September Term, 1877, Pierpoint, C. J. presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Pleas, general issue, payment, and accord and satisfaction. Trial by jury, September Term, 1877, Pierpoint, C. J. presiding. The declaration was as follows: * * * Eor that the defendant, on, &c., at, &c., promised the plaintiff that if he would deed to him a certain piece of land lying, It appeared from plaintiff’s testimony that on March 22, 1876, plaintiff was the owner of a piece of land in Ferrisburgh, whereon were four mortgages, — one to N. J. Allen for $100 ; one to Platt & Allen for $100 ; one to Charles Lafountain for $30 ; and one to defendant to secure the payment of a…
1Opinion of the Court
*406The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dunton, J.
The defendant claims that there is a fatal variance between the contract or agreement set forth in the declaration and the one proved on trial.
I. While in stating the consideration of a promise or contract it is necessary that the entire consideration should be set forth in the declaration, the rule is different as to stating the defendant’s agreement. It is only necessary to set forth in the declaration, with correctness, the particular promise or part of the agreement for the alleged breach of which suit is brought. This the plaintiff did,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Allen v. GoffSupreme Court of Vermont · 1841
- Hendrick v. SeeleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1826
- Morey v. HomanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. FreemanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
- Cooledge v. Continental Ins.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- Farrell v. American Employers' Liability Ins.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1896