Dixon v. Blondin

• Decision Date: 23 August 1886
• Citation: 58 Vt. 689,5 A. 514
• Parties: DIXON v. BLONDIN.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

5 A. 514

58 Vt. 689

DIXON

v. BLONDIN.¹

Supreme Court of Vermont.

August 23, 1886.

Exceptions from county court, Caledonia county.

This was an action of replevin of one horse and two harnesses. Heard by the county court, Caledonia county, December term, 1885, Ross, J., presiding, on report of a referee. Judgment on the report for the plaintiff, to which the defendant excepted.

The referee found, in substance, that the plaintiff, on the seventh day of December, 1883, was the owner of the horse replevied, and on that day conditionally sold him to Joseph Belanger for the sum of $135; the condition of the sale was that the property was not to pass until payment was made; that such sale was not in writing nor recorded; that it was made in Monroe, New Hampshire, and by the laws of that state such a sale was valid, as against subsequent bona fide purchasers and attaching creditors, to retain the general property in the vendor, though not in writing or recorded; that Belanger used the horse some in New Hampshire and some in Vermont; that March 17, 1884, the plaintiff and Belanger had a looking over, and found that Belanger had paid the plaintiff $28, which they agreed should apply on the horse; that Belanger wanted some writing to show what he had paid, and the price he was to pay, and the plaintiff finally gave a paper of which the following is a copy:

"LYMAN, N H., March 17, 1884.

"This is to certify that I have sold and delivered to J. O. Belanger one black horse, seven years old, for the sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars, and received twenty-eight dollars on the same.

JOHN DIXON."

—that the defendant contended that this paper showed an absolute sale, and could not be explained by parol testimony; that parol testimony was not admissible to show that the sale was conditional, as before found; but that the referee overruled the objection and admitted the testimony; that, if such testimony was not admissible, then the finding that the sale was conditional should be disregarded, and the rights of the parties as to said horse should stand upon the writing; that the plaintiff let Belanger have a pair of harnesses, with the understanding that he could have them by paying for them; that this trade was also made in New Hampshire; that Belanger had dealings with one Bedell; that defendant claimed that Belanger owed him a large sum; that defendant met Belanger at an attorney's office in Lisbon, New Hampshire, on the twenty-fourth of March, 1884, and Belanger there showed him the writing of March 17th, and it was concluded that Bedell should attach the horse and harnesses in New Hampshire, with certain other property belonging to Belanger in New Hampshire, on a writ to be issued in his favor against Belanger; that it was on the advice and on the supposition that the writing showed an absolute sale of the horse to Belanger that Bedell caused it to be attached; that it was understood that the horse and harnesses should be in Munroe on the twenty-fifth of March, and on...