Brock v. Clark

60 Vt. 551
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided May 15, 1888·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Ross, J.

It is established by the report of the referee that the hay purchased of the defendant, and paid for by the plaintiff, was to be good hay. It was baled and'its quality could not be ascertained by ordinary examination. It did not answer to the character of good hay. The plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the contract, whether he made'a profit or suffered a loss in its sale. As the hay received, because of its damaged condition, did not fulfil the terms of the contract, the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant such a sum of money as, added to the value of the hay received, would make the whole equal to the value of good hay.

The judgment of the County Court was for this sum and no more. The defendant made no compensation for the deficient quality of the hay by the sale to Bruce. He was not a party nor privy to that sale, nor affected by it beneficially, nor adversely. That sale, exceptas evidence of the value of the hay received, had no relation to the contract rights existing between the plaintiff and defendant in regard to the hay.

The judgment of the County Court is affirmed.

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

Brock v. Clark, 60 Vt. 551 (Vt. 1888).

60 Vt. 551 (Brock v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ed S. Michelson, Inc. v. Nebraska Tire & Rubber Co.
63 F.2d 597 (Eighth Circuit, 1933)
Yamaoka v. Kloeber
129 P. 387 (Washington Supreme Court, 1913)
Union Selling Co. v. Jones
128 F. 672 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)