The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1847-04-08
Reported for the Vermont Phoenix.
SUPREME COURT.-W indham
County.

SUPREME Windhan
County.
FEBRUARY TERN, 1847.
Commenced its annual sitting at New Fame
on Tuesday the 23d of February. Present,
Hon. l. F. Redfeld, !
" d. Kellogg,
II. Hall, Justices.
G. Davis,
The following gentlemen were admitted tc
practice before the Court:
George B. Keyes, Bratt!eboro,
George b. Kellogg, Rockingham,
Smith, administrator V. H. j. Pollard. This
was an action of eectment for lands lying in
. Grafton.
The Plaintiff derived title to the lands from
lease from the town of Grafton, and in his
chain of title was deed from Alexis Blood to
Luther Blood.
The Defendant derived title from " The So
ciety for the propagation of the Gospel" and
in his chain of title was all assignment from
Alexis Blood of subsequent date to the deed
of Alexis Blood to Luther Blood.
The County Court held that the defendant
was estopped from setting up his title, by viz
tue of the covenant of warranty contained in
the deed from Alexis to Luther Blood, and
that any after acquired title Of Alexis Blood,
enured to the benefit Of Luther Blood and his
assignees.
The deed IN question quit claimed to Luz
ther Blood all the grantor's " right, title and
Interest, property and estate in the land,
''To have and 10 hold the said premises with
all the privileges and appurtenances unto the
said Luther Blood, his heirs and assigns for
ever, so that l the said Alexis Blood, nor any
other person or persons in my name or be-
oil b,1l bo~ olo nd
any right or title to the premises atoreSdM."-,
The defendant excepted.
The case was argued for the Plaintiff by
W. c. Bradley--for the defendant by Asa
Reyes and c. |. Walker. Davis, j.
The deed in question is a mere quit claim.
The clause or covenant under which Plaintiff
claims to set up this estoppel, is a part Of the
habendum and should not be made to extend
Che meaning ofthe conveying part Of the deed
If it can be otherwise construed.
The word premises upon which the Plaintiff
mainly ROLES often means the land, but may
mean the interest conveyed, and this is the
proper construction here. This is in accord
ance with the decisions in Sumner V. Williams
8 Mass Rep and Comstock v. Smith, 2 Pick. |
At 1t may also be doubted whether the doe
trinc ofestoppcls apply to lease hold interests.
End Smith Leading Cases, AGO. Judgment |
reversed
Livermore v. Bond This was an action on n
note payable at defendants mill in lumber,
and was tried at the May term of the County
Court, 1915.
The defendant pleaded tender and payment
and gave evidence tending to prove that on
the day the note fell due, he turned out a suf-
ficient quantity Of lumber to pay said note
1t appeared that on that day the defendant
st apart two piles Of lumber for the plaintiff
one containing 1925 feet, and the other
2,210, in all $685. feet-and marked the name
OF tho plaintiff and the number of feet there
Oh; that ther4 was thrown into said piles some
two or three hundred feet of lumber not
measured that the $3.50 feet at the price
fixed by appraisers called by defendant was
not sufficient to pay the note, but that the un-
measured lumber thrown into said piles to-
gether with the $685. feet was sufficient. It
further appeared that the lumber was meas
nred and set apart before shutdown, but the
measurements were not footed up, nor the
amounts thereof, together with thc'PIaintilfs
name marked upon said piles until after sun
down.
The Plaintiff contende1 and requested tn G
County Court to charge that the tender was
not complete until the lumber was marked,
and that that being done after shutdown the
tender was not made in time, and that the de-
PENDANT was bound by the amount of the lum.
Der as marked by him on the piles and was
estopped from showing that there was a larg-
er amount of lumber-but the Court charged
That If there was lumber enough set apart be- a
fore sundown to pay the note the tender was a
sutti"lent, although not marked until after sun
down and that defendant was not esto7pcd \
from showing the true amount of the Lumber. t
There was also question about the interest Q
OF witness. C
The Plaintiff excepted
Argued by A. NJ. AIbee and w. G.. Brad S
ley for Plaintiff, with whom were Walker & [
kellogg, and A. Reyes for defendant with /
whom was j. E. Butler.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Davis, j. There is no error in the charge of c
the County Court. The only question was
whether lumber enough was turned out and t
set apart Neither the measuring or the i
marking were essential, and the fact that they I
were not completed until after shutdown could +
not vltiate the tender. Judgment affirmed. {
Noyes v. Collins, This was an appeal from
Commissioners upon the estate of Anna Col
Inns, allowing an account of the Defendants q
against said estate, and was referred to an au-
dltor, to whose report in favor of the defend
auo eAcepClonS were taken, ana were over
ruled by the County Court and exceptions G
taken by Plaintiff. t
The intcstate was very aged and inftm ,
lady, for several years unable to take care of
herself, in the receipt ola pension of $500 per
annum for some years during the latter por- z
ton of her life, and was supported by the de-
PENDANT, her son, who received the pension I
money. The Defendant charged for her sup a
port and credited her pension money. 1t did y
not appear that there was any express con-
tract to pay for her support, but the auditor I
found balance due the defendant The {
Plaintiffs Counsel contended that from the re-
latlonn of the parties, no implied contract to '