Kent v. Hancock

Decided March 15, 1841

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1841-03-15

This was an action of book account. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and an auditor was appointed, who reported, that the plaintiff resided at Wells River village, near the north line of Orange county, and was a deputy sherriff, and the defendant was the toll gatherer at Wells River bridge, distant half a mile from the village; that the defendant had instructions from the directors of the bridge company to take no bills except of banks in the vicinity,…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1861

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1841-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Williams, Ch. J.

¶2There does not appear to be any question of law involved in the decision of the auditor which calls for the attention of this court. The auditor might infer, from the evidence, that the pursuit of the man, who passed the counterfeit bill, was undertaken by the plaintiff at the request and by the direction of the defendant. This inference would be strong from the fact that the defendant referred the plaintiff to the directors of the bridge corporation for his pay. If the auditor was satisfied, from the evidence, that it was understood by the plaintiff and defendant that the journey was undertaken at the defendant’s request and for his benefit, there was no error in reporting in favor of the plaintiff.

¶3The judgment of the county court is affirmed.