Sherwin & Salpaugh v. Rut. & Bur. Rail Road
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action for a breach of covenant, in three counts. To the first count the defendants pleaded, and issues were joined. . To the second and third counts, the defendants demurred. The county court, December Term, 1851, — Collamer, J. presiding — rendered judgment that the second and third counts were insufficient. Exceptions hy plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Action for a breach of covenant, in three counts. To the first count the defendants pleaded, and issues were joined. . To the second and third counts, the defendants demurred. The county court, December Term, 1851, — Collamer, J. presiding — rendered judgment that the second and third counts were insufficient. Exceptions hy plaintiffs. The second count presents this question: — If one, who has covenanted to perform certain work hy a certain time, fail to perform by the time stipulated, can he sustain an action upon the covenant, by proving, that the time for performance was enlarged by parol.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
This case presents the naked question, whether the plaintiff having contracted under seal to perform certain labor upon the defendant’s road, by a specified time, which was subsequently enlarged by parol, can sue in covenant. The case of Porter v. Stewart, 2 Aiken 417, expressly decides, that he cannot, and that case has never been questioned, in this State, although the case of Little v. Holland, upon which the case of Porter v. Stewart is professedly based, has been sometimes doubted elsewhere. But although resting upon the merest technicality, it seems to us sound. It goes…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Finlay v. SwirskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Lawrence v. DaveySupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Flanders v. FaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Hill Et Ux. v. ScottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1928
- Hydeville Co. v. Eagle Railroad & Slate Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1872
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.