Conger v. Gruenig

5 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Smith v. U.S.

    979 F. Supp. 279 (D. Vt. 1997)   Cited 6 times
    In Estate of Smith v. United States, 979 F. Supp. 279 (D. Vt. 1997), a federal district court similarly reasoned that once a deposition is submitted to the court in support of a summary judgment motion, "the party is asking the court to treat the discovered information as evidence."

    Workman v. Agency of Transportation, 163 Vt. 606, 608, 657 A.2d 174, 176 (1994). In Conger v. Gruenig, 117 Vt. 559, 561, 96 A.2d 821, 822 (1953), the Vermont Supreme Court, in construing a limited power of attorney granted especially for the express purpose of settling the estate of a relative, held that "[w]hen an agent is given special and limited authority he is bound to pursue it strictly." The power of attorney at issue is a general power of attorney, which is not expressly limited. The general power of attorney is construed neither strictly nor liberally, but so as to carry out the intent of the principal.

  2. In re Curtis

    262 B.R. 619 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2001)   Cited 16 times
    Dismissing petition where debtor brought a motion to dismiss in the "preliminary stage of the case"

    SeeIn re Ballard, 1987 WL 191320 (Bankr.N.D.Cal. 1987) (proceedings maybe dismissed by unwilling debtor as not within scope of a standard power of attorney within a reasonable time of filing bankruptcy). In looking to state law, it appears that this decision is consistent with the construction of powers of attorney under applicable Vermont law. SeeBourne v. Lajoie, 540 A.2d 359, 149 Vt. 45 (Vt. 1987) (allowing daughter to file suit to reform a deed where the power of attorney granted power to represent for all matters concerning the farm); Conger v. Gruening, 96 A.2d 821, 117 Vt. 559 (Vt. 1953) (deemed the power of attorney to be limited and not including the entering into agreements not specifically authorized); see alsoShall v. Gilbert, 741 A.2d 286, 169 Vt. 627 (Vt. 1999) (allowing sale of Certificates of Deposit although not expressly authorized where powers were "broadly drawn" yet specifically authorized drawing funds from bank accounts and making various financial decision). The Court does not address the arguments of the case trustee as to the alleged fraudulent conveyance because the determination to allow dismissal of the chapter 7 case is made without consideration of — and is independent of — the merits of that contention.

  3. Town of Stowe v. Stowe Theatre Guild

    180 Vt. 165 (Vt. 2006)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming trial court's conclusion that nonprofit theater group leasing performance space in town building under oral lease was not implied coinsured under town's fire insurance policy on the building

    See Joerg, 2003 VT 27, ¶ 10 ("[W]here the lease expressly requires the landlord to maintain insurance on the premises, the landlord will take the cost of the insurance into account when setting rent."). We construe the language and acts of one party to a contract as the other party would reasonably construe them at the time the contract was made, Conger v. Gruenig, 117 Vt. 559, 562, 96 A.2d 821, 823 (1953), and the lease here nowhere suggests that tenant would be held harmless by landlord for negligent damage to the building. ¶ 14.

  4. Bachli v. Holt

    124 Vt. 159 (Vt. 1964)   Cited 11 times

    He will not be entitled to claim a different consequence as the result of some undisclosed mental reservation which he had when the contract was made. Right Printing Co. v. Stevens, 107 Vt. 359, 365, 179 A. 209, 100 A.L.R. 528; Conger v. Gruenig, 117 Vt. 559, 562, 96 A.2d 821. On the evidence brought before them, a jury had adequate reason to find that the plaintiff was entitled to understand that his undertaking was with the defendant as principal contractor.

  5. Ready v. Peters

    117 A.2d 374 (Vt. 1955)   Cited 8 times

    In passing upon such a motion the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and the effect of modifying evidence is to be excluded. If there is any substantial evidence fairly and reasonably tending to support the plaintiff's claim, the question is for the jury. Campbell v. Howard Natl B T Co., 118 Vt. 182, 183, 103 A.2d 96; Fletcher v. Manning, 118 Vt. 240, 241-242, 105 A.2d 264; Conger v. Gruenig, 117 Vt. 559, 562, 96 A.2d 821; Silveira v. Croft, 116 Vt. 420, 421, 422, 77 A.2d 911. On May 10, 1951, which was a bright day with the sun shining, the plaintiff was injured in getting out of a taxicab owned by the defendant Peters and insured by the defendant Peerless Casualty Company. At the time Peters was furnishing two taxicabs to carry passengers attending a funeral and was paid by the funeral director.