Case ID: vt_73/html/0352-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Munson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. W. Fisher v. Thomas L. Tupper.
    May Term, 1901.
    Present: Rowell, Tyleb, Munson and Watson, JJ.
    Opinion filed November 29, 1901.
    
      Appeals from justices — Meaning of “exMiit” as used in V. S. 1298 — In tbe statute relating to appeals from justices, tbe plaintiff’s exhibit intended is a writing offered as the basis of recovery.
    Petition under V. S. 1667 for leave to enter a cause in which an appeal was denied by the trial justice. Heard on demurrer to- the petition, Franklin County, September Term, 1899, Start, J., presiding. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition. The petitioner excepted.
    The petition set out that judgment was rendered against the petitioner by a justice of the peace in an action of assumpsit brought by the petitionee, that the petitioner seasonably prayed for an appeal and tendered good and sufficient bail therefor, but that his appeal was denied by the justice.
    
      Guy H. Start for the petitioner.
    
      W. D. Stewart for the petitionee.
   Munson, J.

Neither the ad damnum in the writ, nor the sum demanded by the declaration, nor the specification presented by the plaintiff, exceeded twenty dollars; and the case was «not appealable unless the plaintiff offered an exhibit exceeding that amount. V. S. 1298. It is clear that the exhibit here intended is a writing offered as the basis of recovery. Church v. Vanduzee, 4 Vt. 195; Weston v. Marsh, 12 Vt. 420; Warren v. Newfane, 25 Vt. 250; Connecticut etc. R. R. Co. v. Bates, 32 Vt. 420; Cole v. Goodell, 39 Vt. 400; Williams v. Mason, 45 Vt. 372; Concord v. National Bank, 51 Vt. 144; Perry v. Gay, 52 Vt. 615. The plaintiff offered no writing other than his specification. So no statement of a claim exceeding twenty dollars was presented in any of the ways specified in the statute, and further inquiry as to the petitioner’s position is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.