Bottalico v. Pellini

Supreme Court of Vermont

Bottalico v. Pellini

112 A. 197, 95 Vt. 92, 1921 Vt. LEXIS 179

DecidedJanuary 8, 1921

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A. 197 (Bottalico v. Pellini) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bottalico v. Pellini, 112 A. 197, 95 Vt. 92, 1921 Vt. LEXIS 179 (Vt. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Watson, C. J.

In cross-examination plaintiff was asked and testified as follows: “Q. Tour only claim is now that there is two colors in that suit? A. Yes. Q. That is'yoiir wholé claim? A. Yes. I claim .that there is two colors in that suit. Q. And you do not claim anything else? A. No.” Urging that this was a waiver by plaintiff of all other alleged ground's of complaint within the scope of the declaration, the defendant objected to evidence showing that he made a mistake in cutting the cloth of which the suit was made, different ways of the nap, thereby making the suit look as if it were made of two pieces of cloth, unlike in color. There was no error in receiving the evidence. The mere fact that plaintiff stated in cross-examination as set forth above, did not in itself constitute a waiver of other alleged grounds of action, shown by proper evidence.

[94]*94Defendant excepted to the judgment, but assigned no grounds. The only ground argued is that of waiver, determined in the preceding paragraph.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Watson, C. J.

In cross-examination plaintiff was asked and testified as follows: “Q. Tour only claim is now that there is two colors in that suit? A. Yes. Q. That is'yoiir wholé claim? A. Yes. I claim .that there is two colors in that suit. Q. And you do not claim anything else? A. No.” Urging that this was a waiver by plaintiff of all other alleged ground's of complaint within the scope of the declaration, the defendant objected to evidence showing that he made a mistake in cutting the cloth of which the suit was made, different ways of the nap, thereby making the suit look as if it were made of two pieces of cloth, unlike in color. There was no error in receiving the evidence. The mere fact that plaintiff stated in cross-examination as set forth above, did not in itself constitute a waiver of other alleged grounds of action, shown by proper evidence.

[94]*94Defendant excepted to the judgment, but assigned no grounds. The only ground argued is that of waiver, determined in the preceding paragraph.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A. 197, 95 Vt. 92, 1921 Vt. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bottalico-v-pellini-vt-1921.