Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1903-04-24
WlNDHAM COUNTY COURT.

:. W. Edgctt vs.. +, l.. Burboe, Adm r.
Apt This WAS an action to recover
$50 as commission on a real estate trans
action between the defendant and Harri-
son Whitaker of Amherst. Mass. Th,
evidence in the case was to the effect
that w H. a. Burbce of Windham
father of the defendant "A short tim,
previous to his death in November. 1901
placed his real estate i'm Windham con
sistug of saw mill and several pieces
of wood land. in the hands of Edgett for
sale or exchange. After Mr.. Burbee :
death his son. the defendant. wrote Ed
gett that the property would remain i'm
his hands for sale and that they would
entertain propositions of exchange for
Brdttlebor1 or Springfield property. Ed
sett advertised the Burhee property i'm
Massachusetts newspapers and soon re-
ceiNed proposition from Whitaker To
take it, if found satisfactory. in eN-
change for three tenement houses that
he owned in Springfield Mass. Edgett
gave Whitaker a letter of Introduction tn
the defendant whereupon. he. Whitaker
went to Windham to look over the Bur
bee property. Edgett. Burbee and Whit
aker then went to Springfield to inspect
the houses of the latter. and papers were
made out at Brattleboro December y,
1901, whereby Burbee. as administrator.
was to convey the real estate in Wind
ham belonging to his fathers estate.
also. a tract of some 800 acres of his
own in West Dover. known as the j. B.
Davis wOodlot. in exchange for Whita-
ker's three houses in Springfield.
Whitaker was To assume a mortgage of
SlW1 on the Windham saw mill property,
and Burhtc was to ASSUME "a mortgage
of $500 on the Springfield houses. Be
fore the papers We're passed it was dis
covered that the defendant had no IL
fY..y .I...t
real estate belonging to his fathers cS-
tate.
The matter was held open until license
To sell should be received and it was not
until June p. 1902, that all the deeds We're
signed At this time complaint was
made by Whitaker that the Windham
mortgage had been represented to him to
cover only the saw mill property. where
as he had learned that it covered some
of the timber land also. There was
also some misunderstanding relative To
the number of acres in the West Dover
tract and pending this adjustment Of
these matters the deeds were left in
Edgetts hands to be passed at the
proper time Burbce made demand
on Edgett for the deeds of the Spring
field property, but the latter refused to
deliver the same until Burbee should
satisfy Whitaker's objections. About
August !, Whitaker notified Edgett that
he and Burbee had arranged a new deal,
and passed the papers. whereby Burbee
had substituted another woodlot in place
of the Windham sawmill, the other real
estate transferred being the same as in
cluded i'm the first arrangement. Whit
aker paid his share Of the commission to
Edgett but Burbee refused to pay.
Edgett testified that the commission
agreed upon was to be $50 i'm case of
sale, which fact Burbee did not deny. but
made the claim that the deal finally con-
summated was "A different one from that
which Edgett engineered, and which
failed through no fault of the defendant,
The jury took the case about 4 o'clock
Friday afternoon and We're discharged at
O'Clock Saturday afternoon. not being
able to agree. Fits IL Schwenk for
plaintiff, Waterman & Martin and Cud-
worth for defendant.
Henry +. Adams, Apt. Us. Gilbert Bur
roughs. This was an action of ASSUME
sit To recover $3.50 as commission on "A
real estate deal arranged by Burroughs
with Samuel Smith, whereby Burroughs
was to exchange his farm in Halifax for
a house owned in part by Smith at
Athol Mass. The plaintiff took the wit
ness stand and detailed the Arrangement
between the parties to the exchange.
submitted a contract signed by them to
convey one to another their respective
the signing of this contract established
his right To the commission.
1t appeared that no actual exchange of
property had taken place. Upon the
assembling of the court Saturday morn
ing the case was discontinued.
Wilmington Savings bank VS.. Charles
H. Waste, Apt. This was an action to
recover of defendant on IA note for $3.50
to the bank dated June $500 signed bv
bat
rael L. Hall, of Halifax, and purporting
to have been endorsed by Charles II
Waste, the defendant Waste is "A Jack
sonVille merchant, who has had large
dealings with the bank for some years.
and a man with good credit.
Han presented the note at the bank and
received the money on it without ques-
ton. On Dec. 10, 1871. Israel Han was
for attempting to negotiate
note at Shelburne Falls bank which
was shown to bear fOpged endorsement.
At this time the officers of the VIII
mington Savings bank investigated the
paper which HAN had placed with them,
and found forged endorsements on seV-
eral notes. aggregating a large amount
The defendant, Waste, learning that one
of Halls notes to the bank bore his sig
nature, went to the bank, asked to see
the note, and declared to the bank Of
hcials that he did not sign it, The bank
made no demand of Waste for payment
of the note until a year or more after
Halls arrest, when It was placed in the
hands of an attorney, and on Wastes
refusal TO pay action was begun. The
trial began before "A jury Saturday
morning. a large number of notes,
checks and letters bearing Wastes sig
natures, admitted to be genuine, were
put into the case for comparison. W.
II, Bracket, c, II. Pratt and C. A. Har-
90 . ~.