Beach v. Dorwin
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit in two counts. The first a special count declaring on a contract relative to the sale of a lot of land in Hinesburgh; the second, a count for money had and received. Plea, non-assumpsit and a set-off. Issues to the country.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit in two counts. The first a special count declaring on a contract relative to the sale of a lot of land in Hinesburgh; the second, a count for money had and received. Plea, non-assumpsit and a set-off. Issues to the country. On the trial in the county court, it appeared in evidence that, before the 10th of April, 1834, the defendant had signed certain receipts for property attached on writs against one Robert Beach, the father of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiffs, by several deeds, had mortgaged the land to defendant to secure him against said receipts ;…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
— It is evident that the plaintiffs cannot recover for use and occupation, on either countin the declaration. To entitle them to recover for such claim, there must be a count for use and occupation. From the facts detailed in the bill of exceptions, the plaintiffs can have no right to recover the avails of the farm for the year that the defendant was in the possession of it, unless it be under the appropriate declaration for such claim.
The fact that this farm was sold by the consent of all parties in interest, on a credit, as to a part of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sandusky v. Oil Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
- Wertheim v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1900