The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1848-03-16

SUPREME CouRT DEcIsfoNs.-A Although our Re
port of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court a
its sttinI in Rutland is quite lengthy, we think the
two following decisions given BY the same body at
its recent sitting in Windhatn County, which We
copy from the Brattleboro Eogo of the 7th inst.
will be read with interest by those who desire tc
know the law, and its construction by our high:
courts.
Wells J This was an action brought for
vs.. the recovery Of two pronisory
Howard. } notes, dated Sept. 1886. one pay
able in seven months, and the other in one
year from date--given BY the defendant 10
one Dexter, and by him endorsed to the
plaintiff. At the time Of the Execution Of
the notes, Dexter gave his bond to the deft-
conditioned that upon the payment Of the
notes according to their tenor, and the cree
ton of a house OF Il certain specified deStrlp~
ton upon certain lot Of land, within cue
year, he would convey said lot to the def
On the day after the writings were exchang-
ed, Dexter conveyed the land to one Hutch
ms and had no title to the land till after the
last note became due.
The defendant contendcd that the noes
and bond were to be construed together as if
contained in one instrumental that the pay
ment Of the notes and the obligations 10 con
yey the land were manual and dellendeut
covenants, and that TIE law wou!d imply
! further covenant by Dexter to retain III him.
SELF during the whole year until the last note
matured, the title of the land; and that the
breach by Dexter of this implied cover ait il.
conveying the land to Uutchins was good
defence to the notes.
The defendant further insisted that the act
| RI in he. tHO IA
third person, and thus putting it cut q lis
power to fulfill his contract with Howard,
was so totally inconsistent with lis obligations
that it gave Howard tie right 10 treat it AS
resembling of the contract.
The plaintiff maintained that the contracts
we're independent; that the consideration OF
the notes was the bond, not the conveyance,
or the ability to convey the land-that to
make the liability Of the defendant 10 pay
his notes depend upon the conveyance Of the
land was making a new contract between The
parties wholly different from the one actu-
ally concluded by them.
Judge Rcdfcld delivered the opinion oF tic
court, and after complimeniug the lear ing
and ingenuity Of the DEE ndants counsel, de-
cided against the points made by bin, ; the
court were of opinion that tire contracts were
independent, and that the. conveyance OF lie
land by Dexter 10 lIutchins WAS not such IN
ac, as entitled Howard to treat Tie contract
as rescinded, because it did not appear hut
what Dexter could and would have got tho
title back, in case Howard he'd pad. or cf
fered to pay his notcs-that there r&s o
; evidence that Dexter owned, or WIS euypos-
ed to own the land when the notes and lond
2 were executed; it was sufficient # Dexter
obtared !he title, SO as to convey tic land
: when the last note was paid
A. Keyes, W, G. Bradley, for Plaintiff.
o. L. SKATER, J. Roberts, for Defendant
Smith The facts of TIE case were these :.
VS.. Sam Smith leased to ore Brown
Niles. ! farm and ten COVE for the term Ct
three years; the cows were to be at Smiths.
risk, he was to paw the taxes upon them, and
! furnish hay for their keeping dunn Q tie win
$ ter, and Blown had the right to return tho
same cows, or others of equal value, to Smith
: at TIE expiration of the three years. Tie Ie
} versonary interest Of Smith in lie COWS was
sold on execution; afterwards the COWS them
selves were taken and sold on execution, rs
b, the property of Brown.
/ Two questions were made in the case:
, l. Whether Smith had any interest in tho
cows at all.
2. II he had any interest, whether it wEs
such as could be sold on execution.
f The court decided that the transfer Of tho
4 cows was q mere lease, and did not am0unt to
sale.
And secondly, that the interest of the lee
sor could not be attached, nor sold on eXecr-
e ton, because the officer could not take pos
session of the COWS without interfering with
i the rights Of the lessee.
c. J.. Walker, for Plaintiff
| 4. Reyes, for Defendant