Brown v. Kimball

Supreme Court of Vermont

Brown v. Kimball

12 Vt. 617

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedAugust 15, 1839

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 12 Vt. 617 (Brown v. Kimball) 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

Brown v. Kimball, 12 Vt. 617 (Vt. 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, J.

— In this case, the auditor finds that the labor, for which the plaintiff seeks to recover, was done in part performance of an entire contract between the parties for six and a half months labor, and that the plaintiff voluntarily abandoned the contract at the end of two and a half months. Whether the contract was to become absolute for the full term, if neither party elected to determine it at the end of one month, and whether the plaintiff left the employment of defendant without cause, are questions of fact within the absolute province of the auditor to determine, both of which questions he has determined against the plaintiff. Under this state of facts, it is quite impossible for the plaintiff to expect to recover. Steamboat Co. v. Wilkins, 8 Vt. R. 54. 1 Swift’s Dig. 682,683. Faxon v. Mansfield, 2 Mass. R. 147. Cut[619]*619ter v. Powell, 6 T. R. 321. Jennings v. Camp. 13 Johns. R. 94.

In a late case it was considered that where the party, in a contract of this character, is prevented from fulfilling his undertaking by sickness, or other inevitable accident, he may recover for part performance. Fenton v. Clark, 11 Vt. R. 557. This, however, could not aid the plaintiff in this case.

The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, J.

— In this case, the auditor finds that the labor, for which the plaintiff seeks to recover, was done in part performance of an entire contract between the parties for six and a half months labor, and that the plaintiff voluntarily abandoned the contract at the end of two and a half months. Whether the contract was to become absolute for the full term, if neither party elected to determine it at the end of one month, and whether the plaintiff left the employment of defendant without cause, are questions of fact within the absolute province of the auditor to determine, both of which questions he has determined against the plaintiff. Under this state of facts, it is quite impossible for the plaintiff to expect to recover. Steamboat Co. v. Wilkins, 8 Vt. R. 54. 1 Swift’s Dig. 682,683. Faxon v. Mansfield, 2 Mass. R. 147. Cut[619]*619ter v. Powell, 6 T. R. 321. Jennings v. Camp. 13 Johns. R. 94.

In a late case it was considered that where the party, in a contract of this character, is prevented from fulfilling his undertaking by sickness, or other inevitable accident, he may recover for part performance. Fenton v. Clark, 11 Vt. R. 557. This, however, could not aid the plaintiff in this case.

The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Vt. 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-kimball-vt-1839.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack