Allen v. Hooker
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit. Declaration on Book, and plea in offset, and trial by jury. The plaintiff gave evidence, tending to prove that in July, 1850, lie laid an aqueduct for the defendant, upon his, the defendant’s land, extending from a spring, thirty-three rods from his house, for which the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff one dollar per rod.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit. Declaration on Book, and plea in offset, and trial by jury. The plaintiff gave evidence, tending to prove that in July, 1850, lie laid an aqueduct for the defendant, upon his, the defendant’s land, extending from a spring, thirty-three rods from his house, for which the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff one dollar per rod. The defendant offered evidence, tending to prove that the plaintiff, upon making the contract, agreed to warrant the aqueduct to stand and do good service for a year, and that the work was done in an unskillful and not in a workmanlike…
1Opinion of the Court
Bt the Court.
This is an action of assumpsit for work and labor, in general indebitatus assumpsit.
■ The plaintiff’s testimony tended to show a contract to lay an aqueduct on defendant’s land, for one dollar a rod, thirty-three rods.
The defendant’s testimony tended to show that plaintiff warranted, at the time the contract was made, or agreed to warrant, the aqueduct to stand and to do good service a year, and that the work was done poorly, and not sufficiently covered to protect it from frost, and that in consequence thereof it failed, and was of no use to defendant the greater part of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Rutland Sash & Door Co. v. GleasonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Gregory v. TomlinsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
- Andrews v. EastmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868