Sinclair v. Richardson
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit for labor, materials &c., in the erection of a house. Plea, non assumpsit. Issue to the country.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit for labor, materials &c., in the erection of a house. Plea, non assumpsit. Issue to the country. Upon the trial in the county court, the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to show that, in 1831, he erected the frame of a house on the land of the defendant and did something toward enclosing it, and that the defendant was frequently there giving directions; but it appeared on the cross-examination of the witness that the plaintiff said he had made a writo ten contract with one Upson for the work and materials, and that Upson was to pay him part in á note…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
—When an agreement is auxiliary to a subsisting agreement, which remains in force for the party now claiming on the new contract, then the new contract is collateral to the other, and must be in writing. It is within the statute. But when the first contract is rescinded, superseded or abandoned, so as not to be in force in the plaintiff’s favor, then the new contract is independent and is not within the statute.
When a contract is once made it cannot be rescinded but by consent of both parties. But it does not follow that because a man has…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Peters v. Estate of PoroSupreme Court of Vermont · 1922
- Cross v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Emerick v. SandersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1853
- Trudeau v. PoutreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- United States v. GroverDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.