Martin v. Fuller

Supreme Court of Vermont

Martin v. Fuller

16 Vt. 108

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJanuary 15, 1844

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 16 Vt. 108 (Martin v. Fuller) 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

Martin v. Fuller, 16 Vt. 108 (Vt. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Williams, Ch. J.

On an examination of the contract, together with the testimony, we cannot consider the transaction in any other view than as a sale on time, — the defendant to furnish security,— the time to be thereafter agreed upon. The time was agreed on at one and two years. Whether security was in fact offered and refused we cannot determine, as the exceptions find that the testimony on that point was contradictory. The verdict could not, therefore, have been directed by the court below on the general counts, unless they considered that it was wholly immaterial whether security was offered or not, — as that was a question of fact, to be decided by the jury. We think the court below erred in ordering a verdict for the plaintiff. If he can recover at all, it must be on his special count. The cases of Hoskins v. Duperoy, 9 East 498, Cathay et al. v. Murray, 1 Camp. 335, Dutton v. Solomonson, 3 B. & P. 582, and Brook et al. v. White, 1 New Rep. 332, are decisive of the case before us. The judgment of the county court is, therefore, reversed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Williams, Ch. J.

On an examination of the contract, together with the testimony, we cannot consider the transaction in any other view than as a sale on time, — the defendant to furnish security,— the time to be thereafter agreed upon. The time was agreed on at one and two years. Whether security was in fact offered and refused we cannot determine, as the exceptions find that the testimony on that point was contradictory. The verdict could not, therefore, have been directed by the court below on the general counts, unless they considered that it was wholly immaterial whether security was offered or not, — as that was a question of fact, to be decided by the jury. We think the court below erred in ordering a verdict for the plaintiff. If he can recover at all, it must be on his special count. The cases of Hoskins v. Duperoy, 9 East 498, Cathay et al. v. Murray, 1 Camp. 335, Dutton v. Solomonson, 3 B. & P. 582, and Brook et al. v. White, 1 New Rep. 332, are decisive of the case before us. The judgment of the county court is, therefore, reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Vt. 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-fuller-vt-1844.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack