Case Name: F. J. W. NOYES v. JOHN FITZGERALD
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1883-01
Citations: 55 Vt. 49
Docket Number: 
Parties: F. J. W. NOYES v. JOHN FITZGERALD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
F. J. W. NOYES v. JOHN FITZGERALD.
Hvidence.
The contention being as to wliat wages a carpenter was to receive per day; held, that evidence of what other carpenters received in other towns in another State, was too remote.
Assumpsit. Plea general issue with notice of payment. Trial by jury, and verdict for plaintiff.
The plaintiff claimed to recover a balance alleged to be due him from the defendant on account of sixteen days’ work done by the plaintiff for the defendant in the building of a house for the defendant at North Walpole, New Hampshire, which is just across the Connecticut River from Bellows Palls in Vermont, under an alleged contract that the defendant would pay the plaintiff carpenters’ wages therefor. The plaintiff also claimed to recover upon the quantum meruit, if a special contract was not made out; and introduced evidence tending to show his competency as a carpenter.
The defendant claimed and introduced evidence tending to show that such was not the contract, but that the stipulated price per day was $1.20, and that he had paid the plaintiff in full according to said stipulated price, and also-all that his work was worth.
The plaintiff’s specification was for $2.25 per day. And he testified that carpenters’ wages at said’ Walpole, at the time he did said work, were from $2.25 to $2.75 per day ; and further, under the objection and exception of the defendant, introduced evidence to show what carpenters’ wages were at that time in various towns in Vermont; namely, Rutland, Bennington, Manchester, Pittsford and Brandon.
This evidence tended to show that the wages paid in said towns in Vermont were from $2, to $2.50 per day.
Gr. E. Lawrence, for plaintiff.
James G. Barrett, for defendant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rowell, J.
This evidence was too remote. It stands on no stronger ground than the rule that distant markets cannot be consulted in proof of values unless the markets are in some way inter-dependent o^sympathetic. 2 Whart. Ev. s. 1290; Rice v. Manly, 66 N. Y. 82. No more liberal rule should be adopted here. Prices in the same vicinity may be shown. Vilas v. Downer, 21 Vt. 419, followed in Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 557. In Benham v. Dunbar, 103 Mass. 369, it is said that if the value of a town lot was in question, evidence as to the value of other lots should be confined to sales of comparatively recent date and of lots in the near vicinity.
Reversed and remanded.