Hunt v. Rublee

Supreme Court of Vermont

Hunt v. Rublee

58 A. 724, 76 Vt. 448, 1904 Vt. LEXIS 165

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedAugust 2, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 58 A. 724 (Hunt v. Rublee) 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

Hunt v. Rublee, 58 A. 724, 76 Vt. 448, 1904 Vt. LEXIS 165 (Vt. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Start, J.

The action is assumpsit and is for the recovery of the value of one undivided half of sixteen tons of hay, which was cut on the defendant’s farm while the plaintiff was carrying it on at halves. The lease provides that no hay shall be sold, but the stock shall be increased to consume it. It is found that the hay was sold, or otherwise disposed of, by the defendant. It is not found that he received any money or its equivalent therefor, nor can this be inferred from the facts reported by the referee. The parties were tenants in common of the hay and other products of the farm. Willard v. Wing, 70 Vt. 123, 39 Atl. 632; Atkins v. Smith, 21 Vt. 172; Foster v. Kellogg, 23 Vt. 308. It appearing that the parties have not settled and adjusted all of their rights respecting the common property, including the hay, and it not appearing that the defendant has received any money, or its equivalent, for [450]*450the hay, nor that any agreement has been entered into' whereby the hay has been taken out of the general account between the parties, the plaintiff cannot recover the value of his interest in the hay in an action of general assumpsit. Albee v. Fairbanks, 10 Vt. 314; LaPoint v. Scott, 36 Vt. 603.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Start, J.

The action is assumpsit and is for the recovery of the value of one undivided half of sixteen tons of hay, which was cut on the defendant’s farm while the plaintiff was carrying it on at halves. The lease provides that no hay shall be sold, but the stock shall be increased to consume it. It is found that the hay was sold, or otherwise disposed of, by the defendant. It is not found that he received any money or its equivalent therefor, nor can this be inferred from the facts reported by the referee. The parties were tenants in common of the hay and other products of the farm. Willard v. Wing, 70 Vt. 123, 39 Atl. 632; Atkins v. Smith, 21 Vt. 172; Foster v. Kellogg, 23 Vt. 308. It appearing that the parties have not settled and adjusted all of their rights respecting the common property, including the hay, and it not appearing that the defendant has received any money, or its equivalent, for [450]*450the hay, nor that any agreement has been entered into' whereby the hay has been taken out of the general account between the parties, the plaintiff cannot recover the value of his interest in the hay in an action of general assumpsit. Albee v. Fairbanks, 10 Vt. 314; LaPoint v. Scott, 36 Vt. 603.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A. 724, 76 Vt. 448, 1904 Vt. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-rublee-vt-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack