Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1854-01-20
IREpOn1ED FOR THE FREE pREssl
Supreme Court Decisions, Dec.
Term, 1859,


for willful deserton,
Ebenezcr Cobb V. Snsan Cobb, divorce for same
cause.
Theodore Tsham V, Nancy Tsha,n divorce granted
for same cause
Lucrctia Beach VIM. b. Beach, divorce granted
for cause.
Fanny Rowlcy V. Aaron Rowley, divorce granted
for intolcrable severity. The libcant was allowed
ms ainony, her household furniture and six hun.
drcd and fifty dollars, There was one other divorce
granted
Beach I'd qui,dn v, Boynton. This was an action
to recover the penalty given by the statute to the
party gricvcd by fraudulent conveyance to avoid
the right. debt or duty Of any other person. The
plaintiff on the occasion of the conveyance was n
surety for the grantcr upon certain promssory notes
and bills of exchange held by other persons. and
which were not then due. The plaintiff took up the
papers over due and brought their suit for the pen
atty. This Court held. reversing the judgement
ociow That the mere relation of principal and surety
created an obligation or conractp from the principal
to the surety, ab 'nnio and that the surety could
set aside the conveyance and could therefore sue for
the penalty. Bennett, Judge dsscntcd and held
that as the right to the penalty must attach at once
on the making of the conveyance it could not vest
in the surety, because legal right or Obligation.
which the law would recognize, existed at that time
between the principal and surety and therefore the
surety was not the party agricvcd, especially upon
the strict construction of the statute which prevails
in penal actions. New trial granted
Wires 4 Peek V. GriSwod Plea in abatement
that the writ was served in Washington County upon
trustee residing there. by deputy sheriff of that
County, and also upon the defendant in Addison
County, by the same deputy. Held, affirming the
Judgment below that, under the present statute pre-
deputy sheriff of Washington County had no author
ity to the writ upon the defendant in Addison
County, although he commenced the service Of the
writ in his County by serving it upon the trus-
tee. Also that the plea was right in FORM although
1t commenced and concluded with prayer of judg-
mcnt Judgement for defendant
Alams V, Soulc 4 Putnaln.-ijill in Chanccrv to
rcscinl surrender Of a lea of a Bowling Alley
and to cnjoin the collection Of two notes rivcn by
the orator to said Souc for said surrender upon tho
ground of the false representation of Soule AS to the
value of the property the offers he had received for
it, its profits, and the expense of its fixtures and
also ON the ground of II fraudulent conspiracy be,
tween Soulc and one Randall to induce the orator to
take sad surrender at an cSorbitant price, upon
the faith of the false representation of Randall that
the property was Of great value, aud that he would
buy II OF the orator at great price if the orator
would obtain such surrender The testimony was
very volumnious. The Court Of Chanccry dismissed
the bill, and the orator Appealed This court did no,
decide the question Of fact in the case. but held
tI,,t, A.. ~, . m, l..
eases of fraud, Independent of its jurisdiction
spcct to discovery, and that if the orator hal
remedy at law, he was entitled to the relief prayed,
ON all the grounds get FORTH except az the repre-
scntaion of value and offers. These the Court held
would not amount to legal fraud Decree of the
Chancellor rcrGrscd, and the rcmandcd, with
instructions 10 make up and send the issue of fast in
the cas-" to the County Court, to be tried by jury.
H'dgcs =. Briggs. Assumpsit to recover money
alleged to have been received 10y the defendant a.
attorney for the plaintiff, from u deputy sheriff BY
whom 1t had hoen collected on an execution III the
plaintiff, favor against third person The case
was referred generally. in ,hr Comfy Court The
referee received the testimony Of the dcrutv for the
plaintiff. To prove hc receipt Of the money by the
defendant, and reported in favor Of the plnintif.-
HeIf reversing the judgment below that the deputy
was II competent witness for the plaintiff and if he
were not, the referee had ri .ht to receive hi. tcs
timony under the general reference. judgment for
plaintiff,
briggs I. HoGgcs. Assumpsit on promissorv
note. Before the commencement of thi. suit. the
plaintiff had pleaded the nutc declared on ia Offset
and the same had been allowed in suit before a
justice in favor of the defendant against the plain
n1,l b,.t H.;
pending at the commencement Of this suit Uela. |
affirming the Judgment below. that these facts con.
stitutcd no objection to tho plaintiffs right to sue
upon the note.
Linsciy =. LorrlV As-umpsit for goods sold and
ncfcnoc-that the goods were bought ON
credit of six months, which had expired at the
commencement of the suit. The good. were bought
by the defendants agent of the plaintiffs clerk in
the City of New York, On the occasion of the sale
bill of the goods at six months prices, with the
phrase " six per cent oil for cash. =" in the margin
but specifying no time Of payment was sent to the
dc tendant. The County Court admitted parole cvi.
dcnce tending to show that the sale was on credit
and also admitted the defendants agent TO show that
he at the time of the sale understood it to he a sale
ON credit, and that he confident the PLAINTIFF
of the defendant, the testimony of one Draper, IL
member Of firm which was interested for the de-
PENDANT, Draper having released all his interest in
the matter, both individually and as a member of
the firm and also received far the defendant the
evidence of James IIickok, Esq, who was the as
sisncc of the defendant, and as such assignee had
conveyed with covenant of warranty &c the real
c'tato attached by the plaintiff in this suit but
iickok held sufficient funds to pay the damages and
gosts in this suit if the plaintiff should prevail
llckok had also been called by the plaintiff at Az
earlier stage Of the trial. and had testified to the
Court as to the interest Of another witness The
Court also admitted evidence offered by the defend,
ant tending to show usage in New York that
sales of the character of the in question were
considered six months sales in the absence of any
express contract as to time. The plaintiff gave
evidence tending 10 prove that his clerk had no
authority to sell the g4oGs on credit. The Court
charged the jury that the evidence Of the usage was
not sufficient 20 establish il valid and binding
l,,tt tl,, L.. Al.