Ambler v. Bradley
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on book. Exception was taken, to the auditor’s report, with respect to two items only of the plaintiff’s account. With respect to the first, the objection was, that the plaintiff had given a credit on the charge, which had not expired at the bringing of the suit, but had expired at the time of the audit. As to this, the defendant insisted, that it could not legally be allowed.
Read the full summary
This was an action on book. Exception was taken, to the auditor’s report, with respect to two items only of the plaintiff’s account. With respect to the first, the objection was, that the plaintiff had given a credit on the charge, which had not expired at the bringing of the suit, but had expired at the time of the audit. As to this, the defendant insisted, that it could not legally be allowed. The other item was a charge for sawing lumber, which arose under the following circumstances: The plaintiff was the owner of a saw-mill, and had agreed with one Wells to work the mill, and the…
1Opinion of the Court
*120The opinion of the court was pronounced by
Phelps, J.
— Upon the first point raised in this case, it is unnecessary to inquire what would be. the effect of the objection, were the item in question the only charge against the defendant. In this case the parties had a running account exclusive of the disputed item, and other claims existed at the commencement of the suit, proper to be litigated. Supposing then that the term of credit had not expired when the suit was brought, but had expired at the time of the audit, should it be taken into the account?
The statute (Rev. Laws, p. 143) is…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Donnell v. HarsheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Converse v. SymmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- In re the Estate of BennettMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Duryea v. WhitcombSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Hanna v. FlintCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.