Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1854-01-20

and that the charge of the COUNTY Cour, .o.i.,,..
respect erroneous. New trial oror,o1
Spear y. Stacy Debt on bond oo,,.,..,..
demnfy the plaintiff &C., and to build = bona.
cording to certain specifications. There 49,,
OF the condition as to the house, and thu, ,, =
brought. Afterwards, and before trial. the n,.in,ig
completed the house in the particulars in respe,, .,
which the condition had been broken. Held, affirm.
ing the Judgment below, that the plaintiff was en-
titled to damages in this action for such completion
as well as for the original breach
Mason .. Ponr. Book Accounts The plaintig
was the owner of certain machinery suitable for tho
nanuiae turing Of hat bodies, and agreed with tho
defendant, that the defendant should furnish WON,
10 DC manufactured into hat bodies by tho plaintiff
mat the defendant should pay to the plaintiff one
nan the value of the Of the machinery and one
hali inc value of the wood oil, &c, used in tho
manufacture of the hat bodies that the defendant
should sell the hat bodies and after deductnp tho
,'s' o' 'ho WOOL the profit should be equally divided
ot'"ceh 'hem neither party charging anything for
MS over tune or labor about the business. This
"o''"h was Drought to recover half the value of
'nc use OF the machinery, &c, and one half the
Prohts under this agreement. Heii affirming tho
judgment below, that these facts did not contitut,
partnership, and that the action was properlv
brought.
h1ggS I. Bostirick. Rcplcvin for ycarlinrs Tho
plalhtih let to tenant his farn for two years from
NPrn l. lSi", to be carried on for equal shares and
SOFA TO the tenant half of the cows thop or ,h
farm conditioned that the title To them sbo,,a mo.
vest till they wcro paid for. 1t was also arreed thu,
the tenant should raise number of calves nm o..
farm, ad that each party should own nm bo,e
thereof subsequently the tenant agreed with thu
PIalntih that the plaintiff should have u lien unon
all the property on the farm, to cover advances A.
The tenant raised the calves and in the fall Of 1850
"'"S III possession OF them, sold and delivered them
N'nc yehfIlns' III question: to person having no
NOTICE OF the lien, who sold and delivered them 70
inc defendant. 1t appeared that good husbandrv
required the calves to be kept ON the farm and
inc referees, Ito whom the WIS referred +, h,
decided according to IawD found from this, an i'm
fIicu agreement on the part Of the tenant to keen
them on the farm. Lcid. affirming the udxmep.
below, that rcpcvin would lie.
E''ga4 :: B'anW = al. Trcypaes The fact. !,
this case were similar 10 those in the Lac, oroor.
mat this action was brought against the tenant and
ms Vende" for driving the calves from the farm.
"'''' "IIrmlnS the judgment below, that trespass
would lie. the plaintiff having rctakcn the calves
from the vcndec. and this action being for DRIVING
them away second time.
ShCpord =. Brocnson. A,suinpsit for money bod
and received. The leading facts in this case. as to
the tenancy and lien are the same as in Bripcsv
BoStwick, After the agreement for the lien. tn.
tenant made quantity of cheese on the farm. and
Briggs and the tenant carried it to railroad depot
To he Skinned Ia n h,,ue -,
for sale. While it remained Mt the depot, tenant
pointed it out to the plaintiff and agreed that tho
plaintiff should own his share of it in consideration
that the plaintiff would then endorse n bill of ex-
change drawn by the tenant on the commission bous.
i'r certain sum. This the plaintiff did, and the
cheese wa' Forwarded. but the ll.iE,lI hearing Of
thi' arrangement stopped tn clcc.e and changed
i'' destination, and sold it hi own account
This action Wa to recover half the money re-
cciVcd by the defendant for the cheese The re err
ccS (t whom the WAS referred to he decided
according to law } decided that the arrangement
between the plaintiff and the tenant was not bona
fd'. but made to defeat the debt of the defendant
"''4' ""'""'ng the indictment hollow that these facts
constituted Il defence to tho aoton,
Bnrd"r u Bru IN g. Hall. Book account The do
'eh"h's sent their servant to the plaintiff, who was
" physician with authority to employ tho rlaintir
l" VISIT third person, (who had been in the s.ryc.
oil the d'lcndant",) once. professionally upon the
credit OF the defendants. The servant employed tho
plaintiff to visit the person, but unintentionalIy
omitted to communicate the fact that the d,fen
dants had limited their request to ono visit Tho
F'aihtih made the visit, and continued to visit the
person, upon the credit of the defendants suppo,iny
that their employment covered all his visits Jy,Ld
Affirming the judgment below that the plaintiff v,s
entitled TO recover If the defendant. for all hi, visit.
SO made as aforesaid.
H'1'n'on Err. Hutchison {, The probate of.
Will was resisted on the ground that undue influence
was exercised upon the weak and enfceblcd intellect
III tue 'oStatr1 IN procuring the execution of tho
VIII. The appellants offered in evidence against the
VIII, the declarations of the tcstatrx made about
Ten DAYS after the execution of the WILL in respect TO
Inc circumstances of its execution, and in respect to
various family affairs, for the purpose Of proving
The tact' to which these declaration. referred AZ
well rs the state of mind of the tcstatrix on tho
'coasion of making the declarations and thence her
state OF mind at the time of making the will Tho
-ounty Court refused to receive the evidence for
'ither purpose, Hrli, that no subsequent declara,
ions were evidence of the facts to which thew re-
erred, but, reversing the judgment below that. de-
arations in respect to the execution or contents of
If the will, were admissible for the mere purposc Of
showing the state of mind of the tcststri1 on the
occasion of making them, if made so near the time
If making the will as 10 afford reasonable pre.ump
Ion that the state of mind WAS similar on both
occasions.
HaswN I. The Farmers and Mechanic, Bsnk Tho
'ailroad commissioners caused certain money for
and damages to be deposited with the defendant
subject to the order OF the chancellor its pay
ncnt to the entitled under the railroad
aw. The plaintiff applied to the chancellor and
obtained an order that ths defendant pay the money
o him from this order. the chancellor allowed AZ
appeal by the railroad company, 10 the supreme
-ourt. The plaln.if imcdately demanded the
money of the defendant but payment was refused on
he ground that the appeal pending Suisse
inently, the supreme Court dismissed the appeal on
he ground that no appeal could legally be taken in