Chapman, Lord, Wright & Co. v. Devereux & Noyes
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. The auditors reported the following facts: The two defendants were the accredited agents, in Boston, for the New England Protective Union, Devereux for making purchases of goods, and Noyes for selling produce. They entered upon the duties of their respective agencies about the beginning of the year 1853, and continued until 1857, during which period, and after the beginning of 1856, the plaintiff’s account accrued.
Read the full summary
Book Account. The auditors reported the following facts: The two defendants were the accredited agents, in Boston, for the New England Protective Union, Devereux for making purchases of goods, and Noyes for selling produce. They entered upon the duties of their respective agencies about the beginning of the year 1853, and continued until 1857, during which period, and after the beginning of 1856, the plaintiff’s account accrued. They were accustomed, respectively, to charge and receive commissions on their sales and purchases, which were fixed by the board of trade at three-quarters of one…
1Opinion of the Court
Redeield, Ch. J.
The general principles of law affecting this case are not much controverted. But there is a most unquestionable conflict in the decisions of the courts in regard to their application to particular cases. It was decided in this court, in Brigham v. Dana, 29 Vt. 1, that persons jointly interested in the net profits of an adventure or business, or in the profits as affected by the losses, are partners. And the same point was so ruled by this court much earlier, in the case of Kellogg v. Griswold, 12 Vt. 291, and in a recent very able judgment of Met-calf, J., in Fitch v.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Winship v. the Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- Brigham v. DanaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Kellogg v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1840
- Hastings v. HopkinsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Catlin v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
3Cited by9 opinions
- Sheldon v. LittleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1940
- McNeish v. U. S. Hulless Oat Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1884
- C. E. Johnson & Co. v. MarshSupreme Court of Vermont · 1940
- Houghton v. GrimesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1926
- Farmers' Exchange v. BrownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1934
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.