Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Vt. 61

Spear v. Stacy

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided December 15, 1853

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1853-12-15

Debt on bond. Plea non est factum, and special pleas. The facts in the case, are as follows: The plaintiff purchased of one Josephs, water lots, Nos. 55, 56 and apart of lot No. 57, in Burlington,, and agreed to pay for them by building a certain house on lot No. 33.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1973

4 state decisions

201853186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

¶2This case having been referred under a general rule of reference, no questions of law are before us, except such as are saved by the referee. The referee finds that there had been a breach of the condition of the bond when the suit was brought, and that Spear was subjected to damages by being compelled to furnish window blinds, and also to get them hung, at an expense of some seventy dollars ; but this expense accrued after the suit was commenced. We think these expenses should be in-eluded in the assessment of damages, and this is the only question referred to the court. Treating the bond, as a bond of indemnity, it was sufficient to sustain the action, that there had been a breach of its condition, when the action was brought.

¶3It is not material that all the damages should have, in fact, resulted to the plaintiff when he commenced his suit. There can not be successive actions on this bond, and unless the damages could be assessed up to the time of trial, there would be a failure of justice.

¶4Damages on bonds of indemnity are always assessed up to the time of trial. So, in actions on covenants against incumbrances, if the incumbrance is removed between the commencement of the action and the time of trial, the sum paid to remove it, goes to make up a part of the damages, which otherwise might have been merely nominal.

¶5The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

/26/vt/61 · .json · Public domain