Austin v. Austin

47 Vt. 311
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided January 15, 1875·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[313]*313The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wheeler, J.

The plaintiff having “ without cause and before said job was completed, voluntarily abandoned the contract and refused to finish the house,” probably could not have recovered anything for what he had done, had the defendant done nothing more with him about it. But when the defendant brought in an account of labor done and expense incurred by himself on the job, and of work necessary to complete the job, as a claim in his favor against the plaintiff, with a claim for other damages for not completing the contract, in answer to the plaintiff’s action for the contract price, and had the- same allowed to him in that action, he received an .equivalent for the performance of the contract, and in effect made it the same as if the plaintiff had performed it, and entitled the plaintiff to be allowed the contract price at the same time, as a claim in his favor against the defendant. The referee appears to have adjusted the claims of the parties according to this view, and the judgment of the county court upon his adjustment as reported, is correct.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Austin v. Austin, 47 Vt. 311 (Vt. 1875).

47 Vt. 311 (Austin v. Austin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Douglass & Varnum v. Village of Morrisville
95 A. 810 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1915)
Jordan v. Fitz
63 N.H. 227 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1884)