Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1845-02-28
Dermont Diligently.
BRATTLEBORO, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY %, 1916.
Supreme Court Record.


c. Washburn g. Co, VS.. Job Ramsdell. This
was action promissory note by the Endorsee,
v s. the Maker. The declarations of the payee Of
the note that he had received part payment Of the
note, were offered and rejected by the County
Court. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision
on the ground that the payee was competent wit
for deft., and that the declarations and admis-
sons of person not party TO the suit and who is a
competent witness, are never admissible. He must
be produced a wtness-the opposite party is en-
titled to his oath.
N. B. There were other points in the case not
passed upon, as this was sufficient 10 decide the
case. Royal Tyler for plaintiff, R. w. Smith for
defendant.
Church & Bailey, VS.. Asa Boyden, Administra-
tor of the Estate of James Minoi, deceased. This
was an appeal from the decision Of commissioners re-
jecting the claim ofthe plaintiffs, which decision was
affirmed by the County Court and the case came up
by exceptions. 1t appeared that at the time Of ex-
ecuting the note constituting the claim, the de-
ceased was a resident of the State OF New York,
and so continued until his death, that the note
executed in and the plaintiffs residents of that
Stale where administration had been taken out, and
consequently that this was uncillary udministra
ton.
Redfeld, Justice, gave the opinion Of the Court
lie said that the most equitable mode Of distributing
assets among creditors, would be for the anclary
administration to remit all the proceeds of the Es-
tate in their jurisdictions to be there equally di.
vided. But such was not the practice or the law
Any claims could be presented to the principal Ad-
ministrntiun, hut persons having domcil abroad
where there is principal administration, cannot
present their claims to the ancrllary administration
The ancillary Administration will only pay the
claims within its jurisdiction. and will remit the
balance of the assets to the principal administration,
to be there distributed For plaintiffs, w. G. Brad
ley, &. X. Field. For defendant A. Keyes.
Hall & Townsley, VS.. J. II. Denison & Trustee.
The question in this 10 the validity of an
assignment made by the defendant to the trustee,
E. r. Campbell. The assignment was of all the
property of the defendant for the benefit of his
creditors. There was a condition in The assign
men, that those who signed it and released the de-
iendant should be preferred, and that after the
payment of the preferred claims, the residue of the
proceeds should be divided pro rata among the re-
naming creditors Soon after the assignment, and
before il had been signed or expressly assented to
by any creditors, the plaintiffs writ was served.
The case was fully argued by A. Reyes & d.
Kellogg for Plaintiffs, and W. c. Bradley for Trus.
zee. l, was strenuansly contended by the Counsel
or the plaintiffs that the condition of the assign
nent was a coercive one, and therefore the ussgn-
nent was Woodland that il not for this reason the
assent Of creditors necessary to make il valid,
md that that assent could not be presumed.
Bennett, Justice. The condition is not cnerrive
'ne, but is only mode of making preferences.
Conditional and preferring assignments are valid,
specially by the American authorities, when all the
property is assigned for the benefit OF creditors
n this case AS no persons have signed the re-
ease within the time limited, consequently there
ire preferred creditors, and the assignment
n it and the assent of creditors is presumed, con-
the assignment is valid and the trustee
S discharged
Sherwin VS.. Bugbee. This was an action Of tres
bass, originally brought before Justice, and APP
'ealcd 10 the County Court The defendant JUS
ihed as collector Of a School District in Grafton,
having taken the property in question, for school
axes. AT the first trial in the County Court il ap-
reared from the record Of the school district, that
he meeting at which the tax was voted, was called
~ notice to meet at given day without naming
he hour. Judgment was rendered for the defend
int, and plaintiff took exceptions and carried the
Ease TO the Supreme Court. And at its session last
year, il was considered that notification for
school meeting in a given day, without naming the
lour, WINS not legal notification and that a meet
ng held under such a notice was not legal one
The case was sent back 10 the County Court for
rev trial. AT the second trial, the defendant Of.
erred to show by oral testimony, LIST, that in fact
he hour of the meeting did appear in the notice,
although the clerk had not so recorded IT, And I'd,
hat all the legal voters in the district were pres
mt at the meeting, and voted upon the subject of
aising taxes. This testimony was rejected by the
Court, and the defendant excepted
For the plaintif, w. C. Bradley for defendants,
Reyes, Il d. Kellogg. The deliberately
argued. 1t was argued by the defendants counsel,
hat as the law did not expressly require that the
notice should be recorded, if recorded it was le-
yay no record and therefore could be contradlcted
~ oral testimony. And that in any event, a meet
ng of all the voters could transact any legal
business, although the meeting was not legally noti-
led.
Hebard, Justice. The questions in this case,
ire, LIST, can the defendant show against the record
hat the notice Of the meeting fixed the hour there
'f? I'd, can he show that all the voters were pres
mt and taxed Is the notice or warning required
by law to be recorded' The law requires that the
proceedings of the meetings be recorded and the
necessity Of recording the warning depends upon
is connection with the proceedings. Unlike towns,
School Districts are not authorized to transact any
business but what is named in the warning there
ore the warning should be recorded, that il may
appear what business they were authorized to
transact. The law then snbsfantialLn although not