Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1900-03-16
w1NDHAM COUNTY COURT
Verdict for the Defendant In the suit Of
Larltin VS.. Hamilton. Brought to RE-
cover for n Seed Drlll.

LarkIn VS.. Hamilton. Brought to Re-
cover for Seed DrIll.
4 u. Ldrkin, dpt., rs. Fremont H0mi-
toH.-This was an action in assumpsit TO
recover S72 for an Empire seed drill. DR..
Hamilton, il appeared, in the winter of
1898, was looking for drill with suit
able attachment for planting corn. He
had learned something of the working of
the Empire drill through his Addison
county friends and entered into correspond
ence with Mr. Larkin, the manufacturer
of the machine at Shortsville, n. Y. Soon
afterward he was called upon at his home
in Brattleboro by II. T. Hetherington, Mr..
Larkin's agent, who convinced him, after
long conference, that the Empire, although
chiefly used for small grains, would do
good work as a corn planter. DR.. Haml-
ton then decided to take the local agency
for the machine, and signed contracts in
duplicate ordering two machines sent him,
the agent taking one copy of the contract
and tho other going into the doctors desk.
The machines arrived in Brattleboro in
due time and one of them was taken to his
DummerstOn farm, where in 1S9S about %
acres of corn were planted with it. The
work done in corn planting was very Tn
satisfactory and DR.. Hamilton did not push
the sale Of the other machine.
In the winter of 1899 the agent Hether-
ington, called upon him and asked pay
ment for the two machines sent him. He
offered to pay for the machine used by him
and to return TO the railroad station the
unsold machine, which he supposed he had
an option to do under his contract, but re-
fused to make payment for both. He soon
received demand for payment from Mr..
Larkin with the statement that suit would
be brought at once unless the demand was
complied with. DR.. Hamilton then EN-
ployed counsel who RENTED to plaintiff
S12, the price of the machine used renew
ing the offer TO return the machine unsold.
The plaintiff then brought suit, which was
decided in favor Of the defendant in Justice
court and brought into this court on the
plaintiffs appeal.
The duplicate contracts were put into
the case. The printed form used was a
very flexible one, designed apparently TO
cover several kinds OF agreements by strik-
ing out certain clauses and filing certain
blanks. DR.. Hamilton testified that he
insisted that every clause in the printed
form that held him for the payment of any
machines not sold by him must be strick-
en- out before he would sign the contract
that the agent then sat down at the table,
filled in certain blanks and struck out GER
tain clauses-he in the meantime looking
on-and then told him that the agreement
read as he, the doctor, wished to have il.
Without reading it over he then signed the
papers, and put one of them in his desk.
The agent testified that he struck out
everything that he was asked TO strike out
and then made the statement to the doctor
that the contract was the same as they
made with other parties. The agent pro
duced from his pocket contract purport-
ing TO have been made with an Addison
county agent which was in the same form
as the one in this case.
That portion of the contract in the con-
troversy reads as follows in its original
printed form, the words in italics being the
ones stricken out by the agent:
III there be any machines on hand unsold at
the time OF settlement not exceeding One.Hfh Of
the rhole number ordered the party OF the sec
Ond part shall pay for them in cash or give a
good approved note due sept !, 1880, without in
terest from --- or shall deliver said unsod ma
chimes at the railroad depot when notified 10 do
so IN as ,od condition rs when received free from
all hack charges. On ia case Of future a. deluer
SAID machines iu such condition said party q /
the prSt part shall hare the right 10 reftse 10 nc.
cept the same aud 10 collect the JitH rdiue OfSuid
machines As the party OF the INST part shall
elect"
The contention of defendants counsel
was to the effect that by leaving the last
clause standing the agent failed to put the
defendants instructions into effect and
thus was guilty of Misrepresentation and
fraud in obtaining his signature to the
paper. The case went on trial Friday
morning and at 3 o'clock Saturday after
noon was given to the jury who at I 80 re-
turned verdict for the defendant. G. c.
Fits and A. f. Schwenk for the defend
ant, Waterman IL Martin for plaintiff.