Mayer v. Dwinell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Boon accouNT. The plaintiff’s account was for one barrel of furniture varnish, in reference to which the auditor reported the following facts: In May, 1854, one Folsom, a traveling agent of the plaintiff, called upon the defendant at Brattleboro, for the purpose of selling varnish. The defendant was then using Tilden’s varnish, which cost him two dollars and seventy-five cents per gallon, which Folsom examined.
Read the full summary
Boon accouNT. The plaintiff’s account was for one barrel of furniture varnish, in reference to which the auditor reported the following facts: In May, 1854, one Folsom, a traveling agent of the plaintiff, called upon the defendant at Brattleboro, for the purpose of selling varnish. The defendant was then using Tilden’s varnish, which cost him two dollars and seventy-five cents per gallon, which Folsom examined. After examining it he informed the defendant that he would sell him as good an article at a less price, and thereupon he entered into a written contract as follows: “Brattleboro, May,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, Ch. J.
The only serious question in this case, as it seems to us, is whether the contract of sale was rescinded. The auditor certainly did not intend to find, in terms, any such rescission. For he held the defendant liable for the full amount of the stipulated price. And as the contract was a sale, with warranty, this result of the auditor must go upon the ground that the defendant had conducted in such a manner as not to be entitled to any rebate for breach of the warranty. This is only the case where the vendee accepts the article…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Patchin v. SwiftSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Brown v. SaylesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- West v. CuttingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brockton Olympia Realty Co. v. LeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Siegel, Cooper & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1923
- Foster v. GoldschmidtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1884
- Standard Distilling Co. v. Consolidated Adjustment Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1910
- Duke v. GriffithUtah Supreme Court · 1896