Bibber-White Co. v. White River Val. Electric R.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont

Bibber-White Co. v. White River Val. Electric R.

110 F. 472, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4869

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont

DecidedSeptember 3, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 110 F. 472 (Bibber-White Co. v. White River Val. Electric R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bibber-White Co. v. White River Val. Electric R., 110 F. 472, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4869 (circtdvt 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

This cause has now been heard upon a petition of a receiver for an order to compel Samuel Williams, a party to the cause, to furnish money for the further completion of the road, pursuant to an alleged agreement. There is no contract signed by the petitionee, and the making of such an agreement is disputed. The evidence seems to fairly show that he gave the receivers to understand that, for receivers’ certificates delivered and subsidies assigned for security, he would furnish money for the purpose mentioned, which he has since refused to furnish. But this is not such a definite and precise contract as will warrant a decree or order for specific performance. The rights of the parties must be wrought out, or the consequences of the failure to perform be suffered otherwise. The petition is accompanied by a motion for a temporary injunction against transfer of the securities. The receiv[473]*473ers appear to be entitled to such an injunction, although it may not he actually necessary.

Motion for injunction granted. Petition ior specific performance denied.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

This cause has now been heard upon a petition of a receiver for an order to compel Samuel Williams, a party to the cause, to furnish money for the further completion of the road, pursuant to an alleged agreement. There is no contract signed by the petitionee, and the making of such an agreement is disputed. The evidence seems to fairly show that he gave the receivers to understand that, for receivers’ certificates delivered and subsidies assigned for security, he would furnish money for the purpose mentioned, which he has since refused to furnish. But this is not such a definite and precise contract as will warrant a decree or order for specific performance. The rights of the parties must be wrought out, or the consequences of the failure to perform be suffered otherwise. The petition is accompanied by a motion for a temporary injunction against transfer of the securities. The receiv[473]*473ers appear to be entitled to such an injunction, although it may not he actually necessary.

Motion for injunction granted. Petition ior specific performance denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 F. 472, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bibber-white-co-v-white-river-val-electric-r-circtdvt-1901.