Ripley v. Chipman
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of book account, wherein judgment to account was rendered, in the county court, and auditors were appointed, who subsequently reported, that the plain-* tiff’s account was for labor of plaintiff’s son, performed for the defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action of book account, wherein judgment to account was rendered, in the county court, and auditors were appointed, who subsequently reported, that the plain-* tiff’s account was for labor of plaintiff’s son, performed for the defendant. They further reported as follows:— £ The auditors find that the labor was performed under an ‘ agreement, or contract, that the plaintiff’s son, George, ‘ should work for the defendant seven months, at thirteen ? dollars a month, commencing the 9th day of April, 1838, c and that the said George left the defendant’s service on the £ 19th of Aug.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
The plaintiff claims to recover for services rendered, by his minor son, for the defendant. The defence is, that the plaintiff hired his son to the defendant for the period of seven months, and that the son left the service without cause before that period had expired.
*271It appears, from the report of the auditors, that the hiring was in April, A. D. 1838, for seven months, at thirteen dollars per month; and that the plaintiffs son worked for the defendant under the contract until the 19th day of August, following, when he left the service…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Booth v. TysonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1843
- Viles v. Barre & Montpelier Traction & Power Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- Jordan v. FitzSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1884
- Green v. HulettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Wood v. Town of SpringfieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871