Plimpton v. Gleason
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. Heard on the report of a referee, September Term, 1884, Rowell, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff to recover only $3.78, and trustees discharged. Exceptions by the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Heard on the report of a referee, September Term, 1884, Rowell, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff to recover only $3.78, and trustees discharged. Exceptions by the plaintiff. The referee found, that the organ was left by one Stewart at the house of the defendant’s father in July, 1876; that the plaintiff purchased it, and left it with the defendant in the fall of 1876, and took it away in the “fall of 1880 or summer of 1881”; and that $45 was a fair compensation for the use of the organ. On the facts found there is an implied promise to pay for the use of the organ. Paddock…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Yeazey, J.
We do not think the referee has reported a state of facts from which an implied promise to pay for the use of the organ can be fairly found. The organ first went into the possession of the defendant’s father, as expressed by the referee, “in order to negotiate a sale of the instrument to her father.” The plaintiff and Stewart, the owner, were afterwards informed by the defendant that her father had concluded not to buy the organ. The plaintiff then bought it while in the possession of the defendant’s father, *606and left it there until he took it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Davis v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1875
- Hodge v. ManleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Warden v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
3Cited by3 opinions
- Auer & Twitchell v. Robertson Paper Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1920
- Stephan v. MetzgerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Stockwell v. Stockwell's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1918