F.A. Jewett & Son v. J.A. Smardon

• Decision Date: 06 February 1929
• Parties: F.A. JEWETT & SON v. J.A. SMARDON
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

144 A. 683

101 Vt. 488

F.A. JEWETT & SON v. J.A. SMARDON

Supreme Court of Vermont

February 6, 1929

January Term, 1929.

Automobiles---Public Good Certificates---Contracts---Consideration.

1. Although public good certificates issued by Public Service Commission are personal in form and revokable under Acts 1925, No. 74, contract, whereby partnership, operating motor bus line under such a certificate, transferred all its rights and privileges thereunder, together with its good will, and agreed to discontinue its operation of line and assist assignee in certain specified ways, transfer being approved by Public Service Commission, held not void for want of consideration, there being nothing illegal about contract defendant having received all that he had bargained for resulting in an advantage to him and a detriment to assignor the latter being as good consideration as the former.

ACTION OF CONTRACT to recover rentals claimed to be due on a contract assigning rights and privileges under a public good certificate granted by Public Service Commission for operation of a motor bus line. Plea, general issue. Trial by court at the March Term, 1928, Washington County, Thompson J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.

The result is that, having found no error to the ruling excepted to, by force of the stipulation, judgment is reversed, proforma, and judgment is rendered for the plaintiff to recover the sum of $ 451.70, with interest thereon from March 13, 1928, and its costs.

W. W. Lapoint for the defendant.

Present: WATSON, C. J., POWERS, SLACK, MOULTON, and CHASE, JJ.

OPINION

POWERS

The plaintiff, a partnership, operated a motor bus line between White River Junction and Montpelier, under a public good certificate issued to A. I. Case and transferred to the plaintiff with the approval of the Public Service Commission. On April 28, 1926, by a written contract in the form of a lease, the plaintiff transferred to the defendant subject to the approval of the Commission, all its rights and privileges under the certificate, together with its good will, but not its equipment or any part thereof. By the terms of this contract, the plaintiff was to discontinue its operation of the line and was to assist the defendant in certain specified ways, and the defendant was to pay the plaintiff the sum of twenty-five dollars per week during the life of the contract. The plaintiff has fully performed its part of the contract. The defendant paid the sum specified for twenty-six weeks, since which time he has paid nothing though he is still operating the line and has made no effort to cancel the contract. The trial below was by the court, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $ 625, which was found to be the amount due and unpaid. It is here agreed that this amount is incorrect, and by a stipulation on file, it is agreed that the correct amount is $ 451.70, as of March 13, 1928. In view of this stipulation, the only exception that requires our attention is the one based on the claim that the contract mentioned was without consideration, because, it is argued, the public good certificate was a mere personal permit, which conveyed no property right and could not be transferred. It is to be observed that we are not concerned with any question as to what the standing of this contract or the rights of the parties thereunder would have been if the Public Service...