Hemenway v. Smith
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts, the first being for money had and received by the defendants to the plaintiff’s use ; the second for the rent, use, and occupation of the plaintiff’s farm, called the Gould farm; and the third for money lent to, and paid for the defendants. Plea, the general issue; trial by jury, January Term, 1856, — Underwood, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts, the first being for money had and received by the defendants to the plaintiff’s use ; the second for the rent, use, and occupation of the plaintiff’s farm, called the Gould farm; and the third for money lent to, and paid for the defendants. Plea, the general issue; trial by jury, January Term, 1856, — Underwood, J., presiding. The plaintiff, to sustain the issue on his part, gave evidence tending to prove that in July, 1847, the administrator on the estate of Daniel Gould, deceased, deeded to one Jacob Davis a farm known as the Gould farm, in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
We think Orcutt, though made a witness by the statute, cannot be compelled to disclose any consultation which he may have had with his counsel in relation to the cause.
*708The rule should be the same as it would have been if the counsel had been called to prove the consultation.
We do not see that it is possible for the plaintiff to recover upon his present declaration for the four hundred and sixteen dollars and eighty-seven cents, which, by the terms of the assignment of the contract A, the defendants were to pay the plaintiff upon the-decease…
2Cited by17 opinions
- City & County of San Francisco v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Harrison v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- People v. MullingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Burgess v. Sims Drug Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Herman v. SchlesingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.