Muir v. Bissett
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trover for a quantity of hay, brought to the City Court of Burlington. Plea, general issue, and trial by the court, Haselton, J. It appeared that on April 1, 1879, the defendant, acting under a a written agreement before then .made between him and the plaintiff Philip, entered into possession of a farm in Jericho that was then the sole and separate property of the plaintiff Judith, wife of Philip.
Read the full summary
Trover for a quantity of hay, brought to the City Court of Burlington. Plea, general issue, and trial by the court, Haselton, J. It appeared that on April 1, 1879, the defendant, acting under a a written agreement before then .made between him and the plaintiff Philip, entered into possession of a farm in Jericho that was then the sole and separate property of the plaintiff Judith, wife of Philip. That agreement, so far as material to the present inquiry, was as follows: All men lcnowed by these presents: 1, Lewis Bissett, do hereby promise to said conditions, which are these: to pay Mr. Muir…
1Opinion of the Court
*291The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
The plaintiff’s wife is the owner of the premi- • ses. The husband attempted to lease them to the defendant for the term of one year, and signed a written contract for that purpose. Before anything was done under the contract, the defendant was notified that a lien on the crops, as security for the rent, was a part of the contract, and accidentally omitted in the writing, that the premises were the property of the wife Judith; and the defendant was forbidden to enter upon the premises. The written contract was inoperative and void as to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Executors of Stevens v. HollisterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Cutting v. CoxSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Pratt v. BattelsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
3Cited by1 opinion
- Drown Motor Car Co., Inc. v. TobiasSupreme Court of Vermont · 1930