Moore v. Hill
| Decision Date | 28 May 1890 |
| Citation | 19 A. 997,62 Vt. 424 |
| Parties | SAMUEL L. MOORE v. F.D. HILL |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
MAY TERM, 1890
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Henry C. Ide, for the defendant.
The contract was for a team "to go to Willoughby Lake," and the question was whether that limited the journey to the south end of the lake or permitted it to extend four miles down the lake, to Gilman's. The language of the contract, of itself, did not make that certain, and so it was competent to resort to extrinsic evidence to aid in its interpretation. It is like proving custom and usage to ascertain the meaning of contracts, which are but modes of interpretation, going upon the theory that the parties knew of their existence and contract with reference to them. Barnard v. Kellogg, 77 U.S. 383 10 Wall. 383, 19 L.Ed. 987. So it may be shown that the language used has a local meaning, provided enough appears to charge the party against whom such meaning is set up with knowledge of it at the time he contracted. Walls v Bailey, 49 N.Y. 464; 2 Whart. Ev. s. 392.
But Bryant's testimony had no tendency to show that the phrase, "to go to Willoughby Lake," meant in local signification to go to the south end of the lake only. It did not appear what his contracts were. They may have been special, fixing the very point to which he should carry. Hence his testimony did not even amount to saying what he understood the phrase to mean; much less, that it had any local meaning, prevailing in a given district. It was merely telling what he had done on divers occasions, and did not touch the question at issue.
The testimony of witnesses familiar with the locality, that they were accustomed to address letters intended for the Willoughby Lake House to "Willoughby Lake," there being a post office near that house, had some tendency to show that the phrase in question had a local meaning, and such as plaintiff claimed, and it was therefore admissible.
What defendant said about getting the horse doctored, and offering to buy plaintiff another, and promising to pay for repairing the carriage, as well as what he said to the carriage maker, does not appear to have been inadmissible. The testimony was of doubtful import, unquestionably, but for aught that appears it was legally susceptible of being construed into an admission of liability, which of course might be shown.
Defendant's wife testified that when she hired the...
To continue reading
Request your trial