Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 D. Chip. 241

Vickery v. Taft

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided July 15, 1814

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1814-07-15

THIS was an action of trover for a quantity of boards. On trial at the last term, it appeared, that Vickery had drawn a quantity of logs to Taft’s saw mill, which Taft agreed to saw into boards, and either receive pay for sawing them, or to saw them for the customary share-one half of the boards.-That Taft had sawed the logs, and sold the whole of the boards, and received the pay for them.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1880

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1814-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Chipman, C. J.

¶2Where goods in partnership are intended for sale, in which consists the profits of the concern, a sale by one partner is, not only, as it relates to the purchaser, but as it relates to the partners between themselves, the joint act of all the partners. To consider such act of the seller of partnership property, as a tort, would be to embarrass, if not defeat the very intention of the partnership — profit by sale. The other partners have a right to their share of the price only.

¶3Where personal property is kept by partners for profit in the use only, as in the case of tools, implements and machinery, in carrying on a Manufactory in partnership, the sale of such tools, implements, or machinery, by one partner, may, by the other partners be treated as a tort, if made without their consent or approbation, although the sale may be considered as good to the purchaser against all.

¶4The present, however is a case different from either of the above cases. In this case, the defendant cannot be considered as a partner, or, in any sense, a joint owner of the property. From the evidence in this case, it appears that the plaintiff had his option, either to pay the defendant for sawing the logs into boards, or permit him to take one half the boards — the customary share for sawing. After the sawing, the defendant had, at most, only a lien on the boards for the price of sawing, or for the usual share of the boards. It seems that the plaintiff had not made his option, nor had he been called upon, to make his option, whether he would pay for sawing or give the defendant one half of the boards. As the property was divisible, without loss or injury, the defendant might have made a fair division, and sold his half of the boards as his own. But, instead of this, he sold the whole of the boards as his own ; in this he was guilty of a tort, and the action of trover well lies.

¶5In assessing damages, the jury deducted the price of sawing from the value of the boards. This is the justice of the case.

¶6The verdict must stand.

/1/dchip/241 · .json · Public domain