Weed v. Butterfield
1 D. Chip. 161
Opinion
It is clear that the evidence does not support either count in the declaration. There ought to have been another count for work and labour,' or a count for money had and received, as the defendant had received money for the cutting of the spars? which belonged to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Weed v. Butterfield, 1 D. Chip. 161 (Vt. 1813).
1 D. Chip. 161 (Weed v. Butterfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.