Granite Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Parry & Jones

78 A. 789, 84 Vt. 159, 1911 Vt. LEXIS 259
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided January 16, 1911·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Munson, J.

The judgment was a conclusive determination that the defendants had promised the payments evidenced by the notes. The defendants’ offer was inconsistent with the terms of payment as thus determined. It was not an offer to reduce the damages by showing payments under the contract as adjudged, but an offer to show a separate writing by virtue of which the damages would be less. The notes which constituted the cause of action determined the extent of the recovery, and reduced the process of assessment to a mere computation. Sweet v. McDaniels, 39 Vt. 272; Third National Bank v. Dorset Marble Co., 58 Vt. 70; Bradley v. Chamberlain, 31 Vt. 468.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Granite Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Parry & Jones, 78 A. 789, 84 Vt. 159, 1911 Vt. LEXIS 259 (Vt. 1911).

78 A. 789 (Granite Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Parry & Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Parry & Jones v. Empire Granite Co.
97 A. 985 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1916)