Weed v. Butterfield

1 D. Chip. 161
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided December 15, 1813·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

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.