Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1847-01-22

nat even II inc COntltlon annexed 10 the nOc
he considered to render the amount due on II unlqu-
dated and uncertain, this would not constitute an OBJ
lccton to the validity Of such transfer and promise
That the promises of the defendants to pay the note
to the plaintiff, though made at different times, being
promises to do Joint act upon Joint consideration
sustained the avcrment in the declaration OF JOINT
promise. And that the condition in the note being TO
clear all the membranes on the land, the acknowl-
cdgment of of the Joint pronssors would be primd
tacia evidence against both OF the performance OF the
condition, and il It not, the defendant would be
bound to give evidence of membranes existing upon
the land before the plaintiff could be called on TO show
them paid. Judgment ofcounty court affirmed
HANNAH Minis VS.. SAMUEL c. W,REEN.-This
was an action OF espass 10 rccovcrio mare, wagon
and tanning MILL attached by the defendant as the
property OF Chas. and Caudius Mills. In April 1913
the plaintiff had life estate in farm in Colchester,
on which Chas. and Claudius Mills, had for some
time previous resided under lease from her. Chas.
| Mills then owned the wagon and tanning mill IN
question, together with pair of horses, all OF which
property had been kept and uscdby him on the iarn
This property he at that time sold to the plaintiff
The horses were after the sale brought to Burlington
/ TO the house OF Myron Mills, with whom the plaintiff
resided, and who kept them for her from two to four
weeks. AT the expiration OF that time, the paintili
went TO reside on the farm with Charles Mills, whom
she employed TO carry on the farm upon shares during
the next year, and the horses then went back to the
farm and were used by Chas. as before the sale. In
the tall OF 1913 he exchanged one OF the horses Tor the
mare in question: and continued to use the mare on
the farm until February 1874 when the property was
attached. The wagon and tanning mill had never
u cn icio,eu Hcni We iaru, out reha,'eu ''ele IN
men The county court decided t,at these facts did
,rri, nnJ ,j, t o,';sI h w ,iI 60 o w.,
py, "',I af,ag! ,un,'s oee" e"ue'eu 'o 'o
| irhn cns, yyns ara,ad lac, A prcy 4 u, ,rr .,r
the plaintiff, and LIAvENwoRTn q PnrLrs, for the
defendant.
The Court per RoycE,J decided that Charles Mills
having remained on the farm an in possession of the
properly in question from the time OF the sale to the
time OF the attachment the fact that the plaintiff after
| the sale went TO reside there with him did not
amount to such possession of the property as would
render the sale valid against creditors Nor did the
change OF possession OF the horses, for the period of
from two to four weeks, followed as it was by
tinuous possession OF them by the vcnder for num-
Der OF months and up 10 the tune OF the attachment
render the sale valid And thai the having been
procured by Charles Mills IN exchange 'ur one of
lnse horses, ana subsequently remaining in his pos
session. must stand upon the same footing credi
tors a. the horse Tor which it was exchanged And
be also I"crt Of r ",,"rI,e o,r ,e ogr would
Prtsroy rs peters & ~ oo H,;o,, ~, H.,
Demurrer to declaration for snecinI ems Thn he
assignment of the bond from the sheriff tn pniut,ti
was laid on a day prior TO the dntc ot the honJ ,nJ
hence was rcpugnant and bad.
Inc writ bore date Sept lSi5-The bond bore
date April 1873. The allegation was after recit-
ing the bond &c, that atternards To wit, on the
1th day OF September last past" the bond was
assigned &c, IN the usua form.
l he case was argued by kAsSoN, for Plaintiff and
UNDERWOOD, for Defendants
The court per HALL. j. held the declaration GOOD
and the demurrer not well taken in point of fact as
by iar ntcndment, the language amounted to an al
legation that the assignment was after In. making o,
the bond-cspccialy as the actual INN, was i,yuiotc
rial and it was laid under rjdcJic1 Iudrmnnt n.
the county court oFrwcI 7 "
c & c, 49, - :. ,,,
=, nNlih vs. ~ hEAIER, nus was an acton
VI = ',i" sSulpsi' ioi WORK ana aDor' upon con
u uaCt iG' uta'lhs ialiu Inc pnlhtlii offered one
Jrll,el on,i as W'lhess' 10 Whom the defendant
us il!clSeu' ana oereu 10 snow by tcs'iIno-
ny 'iu' 'e wines TOOK Inc contract upon which the
aua'on Mas pIougn. lolhtiy win the plnhuti But
.o uoule ruea tla ms iact II true would not make
.e "pss ileieseu ~ me event OF tins SUIT and adj
,teu MN 10 testify Inc witness testified among
1ei .i. uni ne was ii9t interested III me contract
oc souhu oi ueiehce 10 me SUIT was that the witness