Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1847-03-19
Court Calendar.
Scpreme Court.


Nathan Myirch rs Francis Slasson & ais
This was an action OF Book Account, The parties
had entered into contract under seal, by which the
plaintiff agreed to open quarry OF the defendants and
deliver at their mill blocks of marble of certain mea-
and quality, at much per cubic foot The claim
IN this case was for labor expended under said con-
tract, though the contract had not been performed nc
cording TO It's terms, and no marble answering its
quirements except small block OF 20 feet, had been
delivered The plaintiff however Ind delivered mar
bic from said quarry differing from that agreed and
a part of it had been sawed by the defendants. The
marble, so far as worked, was full o. natural seams
and sufficient MARBLE answering to the description in
the contract, could not have been obtained in said
quarry satisfy the contract by any reasonable
oil labor during the quarrying season. 1t appears that
the benefit actually received by the defendant from the
plaintiffs Tor services not more than the profit they
failed to receive from the not being performed
so as TO produce marble according to its terms
After argument by Barber Phelps for the plaintiff.
and by C. Lnsey for the defendant, the Court per Red
field J. held, that the plaintiffs services had been per
formed under the contract though not recording TO us
terms, and the contract had not been rcscndcd the
proper remedy an action OF covenant. And
Querc. whether even in covenant the plaintiff not a-
wing performed the contract OH his part according to
its terms, las he bound TO DO, unless absolutely
mposslbc) could recover any thing And even gran
TIM he might recover what his services were reasona-
bly, worth TO the defendant, as they might offset the
loss they had sustained by his performance Of the
contract according to his agreement, he would not
under the circumstances ofhe case, be entitled TO any
thing.
William Y Ripley. RS. Harvey Yale.
This was an action Of electment II appeared that
in February 1892 Bly, by parol contract sold to
the defendant ut much per acre the land in dispute
trsmatcd AT 80 acres,) and that the defendant paid
down part of the purchase money, and went into
possession, and ever had remained in posses
SION
At the time ofthc purchase it was agreed that the
defendant mi thi take the land ii estimated $50
acres or have 1t measured at his option and that
when he had made Ms election and had given Bly, Sc
cu1y for the balance OF the PURCHASE money, the latter
TO execute two deeds one to the defendant OF
sch part Of the premises as he might choose and the
other OF the residue to the defendants brother. Some
time after Yale made his election and furnished secu-
MY Tor the pu-chas, money according the contract
BY then rendered him deed of the entire 30 acres
winch he declined to receive on the ground that there
should be two deeds 10 himself, and TO his
brother, and y ale at this time grave BY notice he
should hold the land rs his own After this yale re-
n1ning possession and claiming title Bly, executed
ID decd TO the plaintiff OF the premises in question.
After argument by Starr & Briggs Tor the plaintiff
and by Lnsev IL Barber for the defendant, the Cour,
per linll J. held, that after notice to BLY, tina
should hold on to the lmd the possession oitie de-
icndant, lwto before was more tenant AT viii be
came ad'ers, 10 BY, and the deed Vi tie plaintiff
therefor; under our statute. void
TnpNAS A. HAMNoSD Z, bella IiowE.
his was an action on n prumssory note, for tw,
thousand hive hundred dollars dated September Is
1916, and payable TO the order OF one 'Thomas d
Hannold in one year from date, with interest, an,
endorsed to the plaintiff The defendant, the trial
offered in evidence, three small notes payable to III
sud /. d. Hammond, and in his handwriting an
btgled by sad Howe one OF SAID notes Tor S5O date
August 9th 1916, and payable in year from date
one Tor $3.50 dated Oct. I'd 1887 and payable on tn
ls Sept 1888 and one for $500 dated Sept. 9TH S3,
and payable one halt in one year, and one halt in
years, rom date. There was also evidence to show
that said /. ID III lmmond, in case where he Loaned
money Tor II per mt took note tor the amount loan
ell, and separate note tor the extra per cent an
nj tie time said that that " was his way OF doing bu
s.ness. The question in this was, as to the adj
rIsijsty and effect of such evidence to prove con
'nct to pay, and payment Of usury upon said 81 50
note.
After argument by Briggs & Hale for the plaintiff
and by H. Seymour y Llislcy Tor the defendant tn
Court, per Royce, c. J. held that the production t
the three small notes was not competent evidence t
prove th1t they were given for usurious interest tina
the mere possession OF them BY the defendant no
evidence to prove that they had been paid by Howe
without showing dlliuery to Hammond
ORLANDO FISH, U. DANIEL NICHOLS Trustee of SANuE
/. FIELD.
In this case II appeared that said Fish being 20
rome reason not dlscosed very anxious to raise
10 pay 81 600 debt which he owed the Orwell Bank
applied to said Nichols to assist him. and offered L
give hn bonus OF $500 for his trouble that sal
Nlchos accepted the Offer raised the money, and pal
the debt that Field thereupon gave said trustee hi
note Tor $1,000 payable on demand and that said not
hau peen paid The question was, whether said Nj
clols could be made chaTseable as trustee for sal
$3.50.
After argument by F. Woodbridge and Pier
point Tor the plaintiff, and by I. C. Tucker, for Trus
tee the Court per Redfeld j., held that this cas-
come with the principle of the decision made at til
term, IN Barker 4. Graves Trustee OF Esys and tina
the SZoo, though not usury There being no rate pc
cent? being evidently money obtained under duress
circumstances, could not under the construction give