Dow v. Worthen
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for not receiving a lot of poultry which the plaintiff purchased for the defendant as his agent. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury, June Term, 1863, Peck, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for not receiving a lot of poultry which the plaintiff purchased for the defendant as his agent. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury, June Term, 1863, Peck, J., presiding. The plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that about December 1st, 1861, he was employed by the defendant to purchase a lot of poultry of Hatch & Co. of Strafford, Vt., at certain prices named, if it could not be obtained at less rates ; that after looking at the poultry twice he effected a purchase of it as directed; that its quality was as good as he represented it to be ; that the bargain was made on…
1Opinion of the CourtAldis, J.
1. The part payment required by the statute of frauds, in order to make the contract for the sale of goods of the value of over $40. binding on the parties, does not require the actual passing of money from the vendee to the vendor. But it must be of value— money’s worth — and it must be agreed by both parties at the time that the value is then actually passed from the vendee to the vendor —that it is a then present payment. It is not enough for the parties to agree that it shall he applied as payment. That would be merely an agreement to pay. It must not rest in agreement, — it must be pay…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Norwegian Plow Co. v. HanthornWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Scott v. Mundy & ScottSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Camp v. BarberSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Matthiessen & Weichers Refining Co. v. McMahon's AdministratorSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1876
- Leonard v. RothMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.