Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 Vt. 448

Hunt v. Rublee

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided August 2, 1904

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1904-08-02

General Assumpsit for the value of an undivided half of certain hay. Plea, the general issue. Heard on the report of a referee at the September Term, 1903, Franklin County, Watson, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The hay in question was left on the premises by the plaintiff at the expiration of the lease.

Relies on Aiken v. Smith · Frost v. Kellogg · Willard v. Wing

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1904-08-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1960

3 state decisions

101904191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Start, J.

¶1The action is assumpsit and is for the recovery of the value of one undivided half of sixteen tons of hay, which was cut on the defendant’s farm while the plaintiff was carrying it on at halves. The lease provides that no hay shall be sold, but the stock shall be increased to consume it. It is found that the hay was sold, or otherwise disposed of, by the defendant. It is not found that he received any money or its equivalent therefor, nor can this be inferred from the facts reported by the referee. The parties were tenants in common of the hay and other products of the farm. Willard v. Wing, 70 Vt. 123, 39 Atl. 632; Atkins v. Smith, 21 Vt. 172; Foster v. Kellogg, 23 Vt. 308. It appearing that the parties have not settled and adjusted all of their rights respecting the common property, including the hay, and it not appearing that the defendant has received any money, or its equivalent, for *450the hay, nor that any agreement has been entered into' whereby the hay has been taken out of the general account between the parties, the plaintiff cannot recover the value of his interest in the hay in an action of general assumpsit. Albee v. Fairbanks, 10 Vt. 314; LaPoint v. Scott, 36 Vt. 603.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/76/vt/448 · .json · Public domain