Currier v. Robinson's Estate
Decision Date | 12 July 1889 |
Citation | 61 Vt. 196,18 A. 147 |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Parties | CURRIER v. ROBINSON'S ESTATE. |
This was an appeal by John W. Currier from the action of commissioners in disallowing his claim against the estate of Lucius Robinson. The declaration contained the common counts, and an account charging the estate on the ground that the said Lucius Robinson was a partner in the firm of Foster & Baker, contractors for the construction of the Missisquoi & Clyde Rivers Railroad. Verdict for the defendant. Exceptions by the plaintiff.
The evidence of the plaintiff tended to show that Asa B. Foster, Luther Baker, and the intestate, Lucius Robinson, were equal partners in the firm of Foster & Baker; that this firm took the contract for and did construct the Missisquoi & Clyde Rivers Railroad; and that the account sued for by the plaintiff accrued against the said firm in the construction of said railroad. The plaintiff did not claim that the intestate was liable, except as a member of that firm. The principal witness to this fact was the said Baker, who testified that it was agreed between them from the first that they were to take this contract as partners, and share alike in the profits, but that, inasmuch as Robinson was the president of the Missisquoi & Clyde Rivers Railroad Company, with whom the contract was to be made, it was mutually agreed that it should be taken in the names of Foster & Baker, and under that firm style; that the contract was so taken; and that under it the three went on and constructed the road; and that the account of the plaintiff accrued in the course of such construction.
It appeared that the Missisquoi & Clyde Rivers Railroad was the Vermont portion of a continuous line running from Newport, Vt., to Montreal, P. Q., and that the said Foster owned or controlled the Canada part. The defendant claimed that whatever might have been the original relation of these three persons, after a certain time Foster determined that they must be so adjusted that he should assume the construction of the Missisquoi road, and own it when completed for use in connection with his Canada road; and that an arrangement was made by which the previous partnership was dissolved, and Robinson and Baker both became the hired servants of Foster, Baker's name being still retained because certain moneys which were to be advanced by the Connecticut & Passumpsic Rivers Railroad Company could not be made available unless some responsible resident of the United States was one of the contractors. As evidence of this the defendant introduced two written memoranda, the execution of which at their respective dates was conceded, and which were as follows:
The court did not construe these written instruments, but submitted them to the jury as follows: "
The entire account of the plaintiff accrued subsequently to the execution of the above-mentioned memoranda.
The witness Baker testified that, notwithstanding the execution of these written agreements, the three still continued partners as before. In view...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Webb
... ... Smith, 25 Or. 89, 34 ... P. 1093; Sayres v. Allen, 25 Or. 211, 35 P. 254; ... Currier v. Robinson, 61 Vt. 196, 18 A. 147; ... Weadock v. Kennedy, 80 Wis. 449, 50 N.W. 393; ... People ... ...
-
Luther P. Wilson v. Ralph E. Dyer
... ... Vadney, 108 Vt ... 299, 301, 187 A. 381 and Gilfillan v ... Gilfillan's Estate, 90 Vt. 94, 101, 96 A. 704 ... This being so, mention of it in the opening statement was ... Herrick v. Town of ... Holland, 83 Vt. 502, 512-513, 77 A. 6. The position ... taken in Currier v. Robinson's Estate, ... 61 Vt. 196, 212, 18 A. 147, 152, is repeated and approved: ... "Courts ... ...
-
Charles R. Davis v. Bowers Granite Co.
... ... 1065. See, also, Smith Woolen Machine Co. v ... Holden, 73 Vt. 396, 51 A. 2; Currier v ... Robinson's Est., 61 Vt. 196, 18 A. 147; ... Gove v. Downer, 59 Vt. 139, 7 A. 463; ... ...
-
Davis v. Bowers Granite Co.
...the jury is error. 1 Thomp. on Trials, § 1065. See, also, Smith Woolen Machine Co. v. Holden, 73 Vt. 396, 51 Atl. 2; Currier v. Robinson's Est., 61 Vt. 196, 18 Atl. 147; Gove v. Downer, 59 Vt. 139, 7 Atl. 463; Wason v. Rowe, 16 Vt. 525; Mixer v. Williams, 17 Vt 457. These two letters expres......