Holt v. Howard
Supreme Court of Vermont
General Assumpsit. All necessary pleas treated as filed. Heard on report of a referee and exceptions thereto at the May Term, 1902, Windsor County, Haselton, J., presiding. Judgment pro forma, for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. This was an accounting involving a business deal of thirty-two years. The plaintiff’s specifications consist of 4,140 items, the defendant’s of 535 items.
Read the full summary
General Assumpsit. All necessary pleas treated as filed. Heard on report of a referee and exceptions thereto at the May Term, 1902, Windsor County, Haselton, J., presiding. Judgment pro forma, for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. This was an accounting involving a business deal of thirty-two years. The plaintiff’s specifications consist of 4,140 items, the defendant’s of 535 items. The so-called “settlement” of December i, 1887, was not a settlement, because it is found there were a number of items that were not then adjusted, but were left for further investigation. Lockwood v. Thorne,…
1Opinion of the CourtHasRLTon, J.
This was an action of general assumpsit. The case was referred and was heard by the referee under an agreement to the effect that any and all pleadings which either *52party might desire to have treated as filed should be so treated.
The plaintiff was for a great many years a country merchant. For some'years prior to 1887 he had a partner in the mercantile business, but after that date he carried on such business alone. Aside from his mercantile business, the plaintiff had engaged in the lumber business, a business in which the defendant was for a long time engaged. The plaintiff and the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Taplin v. Hinckley Fibre Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1923
- Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- McDonald v. PlaceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Whitcomb v. WhitcombSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Tudor v. Tudor's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.