Lyon v. Kidder
This text of 48 Vt. 42 (Lyon v. Kidder) 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.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The defendant denied that he ever bought the hay, and the plaintiff only claimed a contract of sale at the defendant’s house in the fall of 1870.
The only^question in the case then was, whether the contract as the plaintiff claimed it was made at the time and place named. It is allowable, oftentimes, to show in evidencé preexisting and coA,emporaneous facts and circumstances attending the negotiations of parties in the making of their contracts, as such facts often throw light upon the disputed contract itself.
The offer in this case was to show a state of facts which existed, not at the time when, if ever, the contract was said to have been made, but afterwards. We see no ground upon which [44]*44such evidence could be admitted. The obvious danger of admitting evidence of a party’s acts after he has entered into a contract, to enable him to escape from its obligations, is a satisfactory reason for ihe rule on the subject. Kimball v. Locke, 31 Vt. 683; Buzzell v. Willard, 44 Vt. 44; Way v. Holton, 46 Vt. 184.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
48 Vt. 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyon-v-kidder-vt-1875.