bounty to such persons as should enlist before a recover according to the vote. Haven v. Ludday named "and be accepted on the quota of low, 41 Vt. 418. (Stiles v. Danville, 42 Vt. 282.) the town" under a particular call;-Held| 18. The vote. Under the vote of a town (overruling Jackman v. New Haven, 42 Vt. offering a bounty to such as should "enlist" 591), that without actual acceptance and appli- before a certain date ;-Held, that this embraced cation on that quota in the office of the Adjutant- the case of one who had already enlisted before General of the State, the plaintiff, though the passage of the vote under an expectation of applied on a subsequent quota, could not receiving such bounty as the town should pay, recover the bounty. Bucklin v. Sudbury. and who was afterwards mustered into service Peck, J., dissenting. to the credit of the town on its quota before

11. Express undertaking. No case has the date fixed, he then having the right of yet gone so far as professedly to hold, that any-determining to what town he should be credthing short of an express undertaking will ited; that his "enlistment," in the sense and make a town legally bound to pay a bounty to spirit of the vote, became complete by the a soldier. Barrett, J., in Davis v. St. Albans, muster-in, and credit to the town's quota. 42 Vt. 590. Johnson v. Newfane, 40 Vt. 9.

12. An unauthorized promise of the selectmen 19. The language of the town vote was "to that the town would pay a soldier such bounty pay to each re-enlisted veteran who has reas the town should pay others on future calls, enlisted for three years $500 * * exceptif he would let his name remain to the credit of ing commissioned officers, and those who the town, does not bind the town, though the have died leaving no families, and deserters.” town did pay bounties to others on future calls, The plaintiff, being within the terms of the and though the soldier, relying upon this vote, after demand of the bounty and refusal promise, allowed his name to remain to the and during his term of service, brought his credit of the town, and he applied on the town's action which came on for trial after he had quota on future calls, and served through the served out his full term. Held, that his right of action was perfect when the suit was brought, and his right to recover perfect at the time of trial, and that he could recover. Haven v. Ludlow, 41 Vt. 418.

war.

Wrisley v. Waterbury, 42 Vt. 228.

13. Past service. The vote of a town to pay a soldier a bounty in consideration of a past enlistment and application upon the town's quota, is binding, and its legal effect cannot be defeated by a subsequent rescission of the vote. Seymour v. Marlboro, 40 Vt. 171.

20. General offer. A soldier, by comply. ing with all the terms and conditions of a town vote constituting a general offer of a bounty

offered, although he did not enlist in reliance upon the vote, nor was influenced by it to enlist. Davis v. Landgrove, 43 Vt. 442. Butler v. Putney, Ib. 481. Hill v. Eden, 41 Vt. Jackman v. New Haven, 42 Vt. 591.

14. Where a soldier, without request of a to enlisting soldiers, may recover the bounty town, enlisted to its credit and applied upon its quota, and the town afterwards voted to pay a bounty to a class which embraced such soldier; -Held, that the service rendered by giving the town such credit was a sufficient consideration 195. to make the promise contained in the vote a binding contract. Cox v. Mount Tabor, 41 Vt. 28.

21. Under an open offer by vote of a town to pay bounties to those who should enlist and be mustered into service to fill a particular quota, they who first comply with the terms of the vote, in number sufficient to fill the quota, exhaust the offer. The true date of the muster, and not the date of the muster-roll [which was dated back], was held to govern, under the vote. Hunkins v. Johnson, 45 Vt. 131.

A vote of a town to pay a specified

16. A soldier had enlisted under the selectmen of a town, duly authorized recruiting agents, and had been mustered into service and applied 22. to the town's assigned quota, upon the promise bounty to each person who should enlist as a of a bounty for which the selectmen had given soldier to fill the town's quota, is a general and him a town order. Under a vote of the town direct offer from the town to such person as to pay volunteers "gone into the service of the should so enlist, and becomes a binding conU. S.,” &c.;-Held, that the plaintiff could recover. Pottle v. Maidstone, 39 Vt. 70.

tract by such enlistment and muster into service, and no contract with or assent of the select17. The plaintiff re enlisted in the field and men is necessary. Jackman v. New Haven, 42 had himself credited to the defendant town, rely- Vt. 591. Gale v. Jamaica, 39 Vt. 610. Steining upon the assurance of an authorized recruit- berg v. Eden, 41 Vt. 187. Hill v. Eden, 41 ing agent of the town, that he would receive such Vt. 195.

pay as the town paid other soldiers. The town 23. Nor will his claim be affected by the afterwards voted to pay each re-enlisted vet- neglect of the Adjutant-General, or of the eran $500, &c. Held, that the plaintiff could federal authorities, to set down his enlistment to

the credit of the town in its proper order, or to does not constitute an open offer, but requires give the town notice; nor by the mere omission some negotiation with the town officers to perof the soldier to notify the town of his enlist- fect the contract by fixing the sum. Blodgett ment. Steinberg v. Eden, Hill v. Eden. v. Springfield, 43 Vt. 626. Jackman v. New Haven. But see Bucklin v. Sudbury, 43 Vt. 700.

*

29. Under a warning "to see if the town will authorize their selectmen to pay a bounty 24. The warning for a town meeting was: to volunteers to fill the quota of the town," a To see whether the town will vote bounties to vote to instruct the selectmen “to pay $325 for supply the quota of said town under the recent each volunteer to fill our quota,” was held to call, for 300,000 men to serve in the refer only to the then present call of the gov war. In case the town shall vote to pay such ernment for volunteers; and that the plaintiff bounties, to raise and provide means for the to recover the bounty must show a contract same." The vote was: "That the selectmen with the town, assented to by at least two of be instructed to borrow a sum not exceeding the selectmen. Scott v. Cabot, 44 Vt. 167. See $3,000 for the purpose of paying $300 each to Eddy v. Landgrove, 44 Vt. 465. volunteers that may hereafter enlist for the 30. It was voted in town meeting, that a war under the recent call, * payment to be bounty be paid to each soldier who had re-enmade such enlisted men when mustered into the listed to the credit of the town, or to such of service of the United States." Held, (1), that his representatives, in case of his decease withthere was no such difference between the warn-out family, as the selectmen in their discretion ing and the vote, as to render the vote inoper- should deem most just and equitable. Held, ative; (2), that the only discretion left to the that the administrator of the estate of a deceased selectmen was, as to the amount of money they soldier, so enlisting, must show, in order to should borrow; (3), that the vote was such a recover the bounty, that the selectmen had general offer as the soldier might comply with, exercised their discretion and determined that and thereby entitle himself to the benefit of its the bounty should be paid to such administraprovisions, either with or without the interven- tor. Collins v. Burlington, 44 Vt. 16. tion of a contract with the selectmen. Mudget 31. Concluding the contract. The dev. Johnson, 42 Vt. 423. Hunkins v. Johnson, fendant town authorized its selectmen to offer 45 Vt. 131. a bounty of $225, to each volunteer to fill its 25. Vote merely confirming authority quota under a certain call. Afterwards, the to contract. The vote of a town, "to direct orderly sergeant of the plaintiff's company in the selectmen to pay three men the sum of the field, in behalf of another member of the $300 each, as volunteer soldiers," to fill a given same company, wrote to R, one of the defendquota, was held not to be a general open offer, ant's selectmen, inquiring what bounty the but to contemplate the personal participation town would pay for volunteers, and R replied of the selectmen in the procurement and desig- that the town would pay $250. The plaintiff nation of the men. Slack v. Craftsbury, 43 Vt. heard R's letter read in presence of his company, and, relying upon the statement thereof, 26. Under a town vote authorizing the and expecting to receive the bounty, re-enlisted selectmen to enlist men to be credited on the to the credit of the defendant, reserving the town's quota, and to pay such men enlisted a right, as re-enlisted men had the privilege to sum not exceeding $400;-Held, that to entitle do, of changing his credit, before muster, to an enlisted man to recover a bounty under this any other town. Before muster, the plaintiff vote, he must show that the selectmen agreed hearing that the town of S was paying a larger to pay him a bounty. James v. Starksboro, 42 bounty, directed the proper officer to change Vt. 602. Hicks v. Lyndon, 42 Vt. 606. John- his credit to S; but this was never done, and son v. Bolton, 43 Vt. 303. Chase v. Middlesex, 43 Vt. 679. Poquet v. North Hero, 44 Vt. 91. 45 Vt. 275. Guyette v. Bolton, 46 Vt. 228.

657.

the plaintiff served to the close of the war, supposing he was credited to S. The plaintiff gave the defendant no notice of his enlistment 27. A vote that the selectmen be and are to its credit until after his discharge; but the authorized to pay a bounty not exceeding $300 defendant had the benefit of his credit. Held, to each volunteer, &c.," is not an open and (1), that these facts tended to prove a congeneral offer, even though the selectmen had tract between the plaintiff and the defendant; agreed among themselves to pay each volunteer (2), that the plaintiff's attempt to get his credit $300; but requires the offer or promise of the changed, not perfected, did not prejudice his selectmen to the volunteer, in order to the right of recovery; (3), that the fact stated in making of a contract, though the volunteer may the exceptions, that "the defendant received have enlisted relying upon getting the $300. the benefit of the plaintiff's credit," tended to Johnson v. Bolton, 43 Vt. 303. 46 Vt. 228. prove that he applied upon the quota named in

28. The vote of a town to pay each volun- the vote, in the absence of evidence that he teer soldier a bounty "not exceeding $500,"applied on any other quota, or that the town

had another quota; (4), that earlier notice of cealment of a physical defect which occasioned the plaintiff's enlistment was not material, the discharge of the soldier before service, but since it did not appear that the town suffered after he had been mustered in and applied on any detriment by the delay. Chandler v. Bris- the town's quota, the court charged, that for the tol, 45 Vt. 330. defense to prevail, the jury must be satisfied

Earle v. Wallingford, 44 Vt. 367.

37.

32. S and R, two of the three selectmen of that the plaintiff knew something material about the defendant town, went together to the his health or soundness which he misrepreplaintiff to procure him to enlist to apply on sented or concealed, for the purpose of incucthe town's quota. S was permitted by R to ing the town to enlist him. Held correct; but negotiate with the plaintiff in behalf of the semble, if the defense had been put on the ground town for the board of selectmen, and the con- of an express warranty, such charge as to the tract was made between the plaintiff and S. scienter might have been erroneous. Richardson Held, that R must be taken to have approved v. Concord, 40 Vt. 207. the hiring, and the price agreed to be paid by 36. The right of a soldier to recover a town S; and that the town, having availed itself of bounty, where his case falls within the terms the credit of the plaintiff in pursuance of the of the vote, is not affected by the fact that contract, and the contract having been per- others, standing in the same position with himformed on his part, could not repudiate the self, are mustered in at the same time to the stipulation as to price, because it was larger credit of the town, more than enough to fill the than R and the third selectman understood it quota. Kittredge v. Walden, 40 Vt. 211. to be. Desertion. The desertion of a substi33. The selectmen were authorized by town tute, after his enlistment and muster into the vote to hire men to fill the quota of the town, United States service, is not a bar to an action at the best advantage; and they made con- for a town bounty offered in favor of the party tracts for this purpose separately. M, one of furnishing the substitute. Rogers v. Shelburn, the selectmen, contracted with the plaintiff to 42 Vt. 550. pay him for his enlistment $500 and as much 38. Nor does such desertion of a volunteer more as the town should pay any other recruit. bar his action against a town for the bounty The town did afterwards pay some others $700. offered. His contract with the town was, not Before such contract, the selectmen agreed that he would perform three years' service as a together that they would pay only $500 to any soldier, but that he would enter into a contract recruit; but the plaintiff had no knowledge of with the United States so to do, and be musthis. M and one other of the selectmen after-tered into service under that contract to the wards were present and acted officially and credit of the town; and the town gets the benetook part in the plaintiff's muster into service, fit it is to receive, by his application on its such other selectman supposing the contract quota, and has no more interest in the fact of was for only $500. Held, that such other his desertion than in the desertion of any other selectman must be taken to have known what soldier in the service. Bingham v. Springfield, he ought to have known, and what M knew, 41 Vt. 32. (Altered by Stat. 1864, p. 26, s. and what the plaintiff had good reason to sup- 3.)

pose was known to both; and that the official 39. A town voted to pay a bounty to such participation of the two selectmen in mustering veteran soldiers as had re-enlisted to the credit the plaintiff into the service was, under the of the town, and had not been paid a bounty, circumstances, a ratification of the contract. excepting such as had deserted. The plaintiff Tarbell v. Plymouth, 39 Vt. 429. had so re-enlisted and deserted before the pas34. Where the selectmen of the defendant sage of the vote, but afterwards returned under town, having authority from the town, re- the President's proclamation of pardon and quested the plaintiff, then in the field, to served to the close of the war and was honorre-enlist to the credit of the town, and offered ably discharged. Held, that he could not him a certain bounty therefor, and he did so, recover under the vote. Barnes v. Rutland, relying upon such promise, and gave the town 42 Vt. 622. notice thereof in reasonable time, and continued 40. The plaintiff was duly drafted as a in the service;-Held, that he was entitled to soldier and was notified thereof, and when and recover such bounty, although, but without where to appear in response thereto. He purhis fault, he was not mustered into service posely neglected to report on the day ordered, under such re-enlistment for two or three and on the evening of that day was arrested, months thereafter, and in the meantime the and the next morning was taken to the provost town had filled its quota otherwise. Mann v. marshal's office, was examined and accepted as Fairlee, 44 Vt. 672. a soldier and was put to the credit of the

35. Where a town put its defense to an defendant town. He was then committed to action to recover a soldier's bounty on the prison and kept ten days, and then was sent ground of a fraudulent representation, or con- forward to the draft rendezvous and thence to

the front, but under charges for desertion, in should vote to others. The town afterwards accordance with the regulations of the War voted to pay $300 to each of eleven men to fill Department in cases of such neglect to report. the deficiency of its quota. Held, that the vote These made him liable to punishment under the excluded the plaintiff, and he could not recover. acts of Congress, which provided that any Hartwell v. Newark, 41 Vt. 337. drafted man who should fail to report afer due 46. The warning of a town meeting was “to notice shall be "deemed a deserter." No see what action the town will take in regard to further proceedings were had upon the charges the expected draft soon to be made," &c., and and the plaintiff served until the war closed, "to see whether the town will vote to pay and was then mustered out. Stat. 1864, No. 6, bounties to volunteers; if so, what bounties." s. 3, provides, that "no action shall be had or At an adjourned meeting under this warning, sustained against any town by a soldier, for the town voted, "to pay each man liable to such bounty or pay, where said soldier has draft who has furnished a substitute," &c., deserted the service." In an action to recover "$600." Held (by a majority), that the warna bounty duly voted by the defendant town to ing was sufficient to authorize the vote. Hickok drafted men ;-Held, by a majority of the court, v. Shelburn, 41 Vt. 409. Rogers v. Shelburn that the plaintiff could not recover; and that 42 Vt. 550. common law courts have jurisdiction of this 47. A man liable to draft furnished and question of desertion, when raised in defense to paid a substitute who was enlisted and mustered such a suit. (Case distinguished from Hulen into service to the credit of the defendant town v. Reilly, 53 Penn. 112.) Harvey v. Peacham, upon the request of the agents of the town and 42 Vt. 287. their assurance that the town "would do what 41. The plaintiff enlisted for the town of G was right about it." The town subsequently and became entitled to a bounty of $300 when voted to pay each man liable to draft who had mustered in. Induced by the offer of $600 furnished a substitute $600. In an action to paid him by the town of L, he deserted G and, recover the bounty, held (by a majority), with the fraudulent connivance of the agents of that under Stat. 1862, No. 38, such vote was L, got himself mustered in to the credit of L authorized;-and held, that a recovery could be upon its quota; but the mustering-in officer, on had under the common count in assumpsit for the application of the agents of G, withdrew money paid to the use of the town. Ib. his credit from L and set it to G, and he was 48. Construction of town votes in soldier's compelled to serve out his time. Held, that bounty case. Wood v. Springfield, 43 Vt. 617. having performed his contract with G, though 49. A town having 16 men assessed as its by compulsion, the plaintiff could recover the quota of the then last call, under a warning, bounty promised by G. Bonnett v. Guildhall," (3d.) to see if the town will raise money to 38 Vt. 232. pay bounties to soldiers who may enlist to fill

42. Infant. A minor having enlisted into our quota on said call, and how much"; "(4th.) the military service of the government with the to see if the town will vote and pay bounties consent of his father, is entitled, as against his to re-enlisted soldiers who have not been paid father, to receive and control such compensa- bounties,"-voted, under the 3d article, to pay tion as he is entitled to from the government, each volunteer a sum named "as town bounty, or otherwise, under his enlistment contract, as when mustered into the service of the United also the town bounty paid by the town as an in- States, to the amount of the quota of the town" ducement to enter into the enlistment contract, under that call; and, "voted to pass over the and to be credited to the quota of the town. 4th article of the warning." The plaintiff had Baker v. Baker, 41 Vt. 55. before this re-enlisted in the field to the credit 43. This consent to the enlistment is a vir- of the town, and was one of a surplus of five tual emancipation or discharge of the minor men furnished by the town who had been from all obligations of service or obedience to applied to no quota, but stood as credits in the father, so long, at least, as the enlistment reduction of the present quota, reducing it to contract exists. Ib. Stiles v. Danville, 42 11 men, which the town knew. Held, that the Vt. 282. plaintiff could not recover a bounty under the 44. Construction of vote. The vote of a votes; that the quota referred to in the 3d vote town "to pay the veteran soldiers" a bounty, meant such reduced quota, and did not embrace without further specification of what veteran the plaintiff; that his case fell within the 4th soldiers, was interpreted to apply to those article of the warning, and that the vote "to veterans whose service stood to the credit of pass over" that article, was equivalent to a that town. Cox v. Mount Tabor, 41 Vt. 28. vote to dismiss it, or to reject the proposition; 45. The plaintiff on enlistment was induced and that a promise by one of the selectmen, to set his name to the credit of the defendant who was recruiting officer, to pay such bounty, town, upon the promise of the selectmen that never being voted, did not bind the town. the town would pay him as much bounty as it Livingston v. Albany, 40 Vt. 666.

50. A town having a quota to fill, passed a bury, 42 Vt. 228. Jones v. Waterbury, 44 Vt. vote to pay a specified bounty to each volunteer 113.

who should enlist on that quota. The plaintiff, 56. The defendant town voted to pay a being then in service, re-enlisted and was mus- bounty of $300 to each man who should enlist tered in before said quota was filled, but no into the old regiments, to fill the town's quota notice of such enlistment was given or received under a given call. The plaintiff enlisted into by the town until after said quota was ordered a new regiment, but was actually applied on the to be filled, and was filled by the town and the quota named in the vote. Held, that this was bounties paid as voted. The plaintiff was in not a compliance with the conditions expressed, fact applied upon a subsequent quota of the and that the plaintiff could not recover the town, for which the town had not voted a bounty. Carley v. Highgate, 45 Vt. 273. bounty. Upon these facts alone, held, that 57. The warning of a town meeting was: the plaintiff could not recover the bounty voted." To see if the town will raise a sum of money to Witherell v. Fletcher, 42 Vt. 409. encourage enlistments in said town." The vote was: "That the sum of $300 be paid to each of such volunteers as may be enlisted and mustered into service under the call of the President for 300,000 men, Oct. 17, 1863, provided the quota is not filled; and in case the quota is filled, then 52. A vote" to raise $325 on the grand list the further sum of $200, to the number of 29 for each volunteer to fill the quota of the town men." The plaintiff re-enlisted in the field to under the last call, &c," construed not to the credit of the town, Dec. 16, 1863, and was apply to a deficiency under former calls. Hatch mustered in the same day, but without knowlv. Fairfield, 43 Vt. 321.

51. A soldier who had been discharged and afterwards re-enlisted, cannot claim a bounty under a town vote afterwards passed to pay a bounty to veterans "re-enlisted in the field." Sargent v. Ludlow, 42 Vt. 726.

edge of such vote, and not acting upon the 53. A vote "to raise $1000 for each white faith of it. His muster roll was not received at volunteer to fill the quota of the town under the the Adjutant-General's office till between Jany. call, &c., of July 18, 1864," construed to apply 17 and 21, 1864. On and before Dec. 25, 1863, only to such as should thereafter enlist to com- the selectmen had enlisted and caused to be plete the quota, which was, and was known to mustered in the full quota of the town, and, be, partly filled by previous enlistments. Ib. until several weeks after and after the bounties 54. A town voted “to instruct the select- had been paid, it was not known that the plainmen to pay each enlisted man $200 when he tiff had enlisted. The plaintiff was in fact one shall be mustered into the service of the United of the first twenty-two who enlisted after the States, up to the number of 18." The plaintiff passage of the vote and one of the first six who was one of the first of the 18 mustered into ser- were mustered in. Held, (1), that the warning did vice and applied on the town's quota. Held, not confine the enlistments to such as should be that he was entitled to recover the $200-made within the territorial limits of the town; although he enlisted without expectation of the (2), that the plaintiff was not entitled to the bounty and without the procurement of the $300 bounty voted. Davis v. Windsor, 46 Vt. selectmen ; and although the selectmen had 210.

contracted with 18 others for their enlistment; 58. Particular contracts. The plaintiff and although the town subsequent to the plain-enlisted as a soldier for three years to the credit tiff's enlistment instructed the selectmen not to of the defendant town, for a bounty of $530, pay a class of which the plaintiff was one; and and the further agreement of the town to pay although the selectmen notified the plaintiff him as much more as they should pay for before he was mustered in, that they would not any other three years' man--the agent asserting pay him. Chase v. Middlesex, 43 Vt. 679. that he should fill the quota only with three 55. Where the application for a town meet-years' men. The agent afterwards filled the ing was, "to see what course the town will quota with one year men, and paid one of them take to fill the quota of men required of the $625. Held, that the plaintiff could recover town of Waterbury under the last two calls of this difference. Burbee v. Winhall, 41 Vt. the general government for soldiers; " and the 694.

warning, reciting the terms of this call, was, 59. Where a town had voted to pay recruits, "to see if the town will pay any additional when enlisted, $200, and the plaintiff enlisted bounty to volunteers from said town, and, if upon the payment of the $200 and the further any, how much, or what action they will take promise by the selectmen, that if the town upon the subject; " and the vote was, "to pay should pay more than $200 bounty to any men each volunteer from this town a bounty of $300, under that call, they would pay all alike, and when mustered into the United States service"; the town afterwards duly authorized the select-Held, that this bounty was confined to such men to enlist four other men required to fill its as should enlist under the call or calls made quota, and to use their discretion in paying before the date of that vote. Wrisley v. Water-them bounties, and the four men were enlisted