Case Name: John W. Emery, v. Henry Tichout
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1841-01
Citations: 13 Vt. 15
Docket Number: 
Parties: John W. Emery, v. Henry Tichout.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 15–21

Head Matter:
John W. Emery, v. Henry Tichout.
Payments are to be applied according to the understanding of the parties, when that can be ascertained.
Such understanding may be inferred by the court, from the facts reported by an auditor, without its being directly done by him. '
This was an action of book account, wherein judgment to account was rendered by the county court and an auditor appointed, who reported abalance due to the plaintiff of $35,-05. The auditor further reported that the plaintiff was a physician and that his account against the defendant accrued under the following circumstances. The defendant had, for several years, been subject to fits, and had expended money for medical attendance, from which he derived little or no benefit. Early in the defendant’s sickness, during which the plaintiff’s account principally accrued, and before more than ten or twelve dollars had been charged by the plaintiff, the defendant informed the plaintiff that if the plaintiff continued to attend upon and prescribe for the defendant, it must be at a moderate rate and for such pay as the defendant could make from time to time; that he would not consent to employ the plaintiff, if, by so doing, he were to be harrassed or sued; and unless the plaintiff would consent to this proposition the defendant did not want any further services of the plain tiff. The plaintiff replied that he would never sue or har-rags defendant if he (the plaintiff) never received anything for his services. Under this agreement the plaintiff continued his services and charged therefor.
The plaintiff’s account commenced April 25, 1834, and terminated July 31, 1837, and amounted to $58,84. All the items charged in the plaintiff’s account were for services and medicine for the defendant himself, except a charge of seventeen cents for services rendered the defendant’s son.
The defendant’s account commenced November 24,1835, and terminated August 1, 1837, and the items charged therein were for onions, carrots, poor corn, rye, pigs, poor boards, &c., and amounted to $29,87, which the plaintiff did not object to. The auditor also found that the plaintiff’s charges were reasonable, and reported a balance of interest in favor of the plaintiff.
The auditor further found that, at the time when the above agreement was made between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant was laboring under some mental excitement occasioned by his disease, but not to such a degree as to render him incapable of contracting and fully understanding what agreement he was desirous of making, and did make, and that the agreement related only to services and medicine furnished the defendant personally, during his sickness, and not to the defendant’s family.
The county court decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and rendered a judgment for the defendant to recover his costs; to which decision the plaintiff excepted.
C. D. Kasson, for the plaintiff,
contended that, as no application of the defendant’s account had been made in payment of any particular portion of the plaintiff’s account, the plaintiff had a right to make the application, and did so in payment of that part of the plaintiff’s account which the defendant contended the plaintiff had promised not to sue ; and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the items not embraced in the agreement of the parties, set forth in the auditor’s report; that, if the plaintiff may not so apply the defendant’s account, the court will apply it to such part of the plaintiff’s account which is least secured, and cited 4 Cranch 317, (2 U. S. Cond. R. 122,) 6 Cranch, 8, (2 U. S. Cond< R. 292,) 2 Caines’ R. 99; 14 East, 242; 1 Com. L. Rep. 202. He also insisted that it sufficiently appeared from the report, and the accounts of the parties, that the articles composing the defendant’s account were intended, by the defendant, to be applied in payment of that part of the plaintiff’s account subject to the promise not to sue, as they appeared to be such as he could pay “ from time to time.”
J. Maeck, argued for the defendant,
and cited 2 Strange, 278. 1 M. & S. 290. 1 Cowen, 122. 2 Johns. Rep. 186. 4 Mass. R. 433. 7 do. 265. 16 do. 24. 3 Pick. R. 623. 6 Wend. R. 471. Id. 291. 5 Mun. R; 507. 1 Am. Eq. Dig. 78. 1 Merrivale’s R. 572, 608. 2 B. & Adol. 39. 15 Com. L. R. 348. 9 do.' 25. 1 C. & M. Rep. 23. 9 Cow-en, 420. Strange, 1194. 9 Cowen, 747. Ch. on Gout 582, 583 & 584.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
By the auditor's report it appears that the plaintiff had a legal account due for ten or twelve dollars. Then an agreement was made that the plaintiff, for after professional services, (the plaintiff being a physician) was not to sue defendant, but to receive such pay as the defendant could make from time to time. The plaintiff continued to render-services and charged them in account. The defendant delivered plaintiff various articles which he received and credited in account. What should be done with these articles ? The plaintiff had a legal account of ten or twelve dollars due and collectable in money. Pie had also an equitable claim for services, which he was not to sue. When payments are made and not applied by the payor, at the time, nor by the payee afterwards, the court are to make the application. 2 Vt. R. 283.
In performing this duty the courts have not always followed a uniform rule. Sometimes they have applied the payment to the demand for which there was the least security. At other times they have made such an application as would be most beneficial to the defendant. They have always declined to make the application to an illegal claim, or to one that was forbidden by law, such as usurious debts or for spirituous liquors sold by small measure above the sum allowed by law. <There is, however, one rule which is clear, that is, whenever the intention of the parties, at the time, can be ascertained, that will govern, if it be not unlawful.
Though an auditor's report is in the nature of a special verdict, yet, the court may infer, from the facts found, whatever.is a fair and legitimate conclusion, without recommitting it for that to be done by the auditor.
In this case, the defendant had agreed to make such payments for the plaintiff's services as he was able and in such things as he could spare. He did, thereafter, and while the services were rendering,deliver the plaintiff, from time to time, small amounts in onions, carrots, poor corn, some pigs, poor boards, &c. Now from these facts we consider the clear conclusion is — 1st. That these' articles were delivered and received in payment and not sold and bought to create a debt, 2d. That, being such things as the defendant could spare and delivered while the plaintiff was attending him to receive such pay, they were delivered on that contract. Such must have been then the intention of the parties and that should govern the application. Applying these articles in this manner, it would leave the plaintiff to recover for the ten dollars previously due him, (I say ten dollars, as that is the least sum and most favorable to the defendant,) and also 17 cents for services for the defendant's son, making $10,17. Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff.