Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1857-01-09
Chittcndcn County supreme Court.

No. 2.-Durand vs.. Griswold action on book
account Judgment for plaintiff. Edmunds for
| plaintiff Underwood for defendant
| No 3.-Troy 4 Canada junction Telegraph Co.
Va. Cornell A'sumpst for breach Of contract made
between Morse Vail and Smith, the defendant, and
! n Geographic association, Of which tho defendant
! was member, for the conveyance to the associa.
ton Of the right to use the Morse patent on their
line. An act Of incorporation was afterwards OBJ
tanned in which it provided that the rights, &c
| Of the association should rest in tho incor-
! poratcd Co. 1.-THE plaintiff Held thnt although
the riglt Of the association might legally pass to
the plaintiff under the charter tho defendant was
not bound by the contract to convey the right TO
use tho Morse patent, but that obligation was i'm
posed by the contract upon Morse Vail and Smith
Judgment for defendant. Roberts 4 Chittcnien
and Edmunds for plaintiff Englcsby for defend
ant
No. 9.-.Rutl nd & Burlington h. r. Co. vs.
Odcll Proctor. Assumpsit for a steamboat sold md
delivered. The plaintiff is n corporation chartered
to build and run n railroad with the usual powers
Tho terminus of its line is at Burlington on Lake
Champaign. Tho directors Of tho plaintiff, with
view to improve tho business Of the Company, pur-
chased the steamboat in question for the purpose
Of running tho same in connection with the trains
on tho road paid for it Of tho fund Of tho Cor
poration and afterwards sold it to the defendants
Mono Of the stockholders Of the corporation took
any steps prevent the said purchase or use Of the
boat, nor any procedure taken by tho State to
vacate the charter. Held, that although tho rur-
chase and use Of said boat might have been stayed
upon the application of stakeholder, mate at The
TIM" and MS a measure Of preventive justice or that
possibly it might have warranted a vacation Of the
charter any considerable acquicsccnco Of the
stockholders would bind them and that as the
charter contained sry,,,s prohibition, but only
constructive one, the defendant could not set up
defence that the plaintiff had exceeded its pow
ers in tho matter. Judgment for plaintiff Smallcy
for plaintiff ; Roberts & Chittcndcn for defendant.
No. H. Lyman VS.. Dorr Judgment renewed.
and judgment Tor defendant, without argument.
Edmunls for the plaintiff Underwood, Mcatk, and
Weston L Shaw for the defendants,
No. l3---.Taylor vs. Cltlin 4 Wilkn'. judgment
for plaintiffs without argument. Peck IInrvcy
for plaintiff Roberts Chittendon for defendants.
No. Il ylor vs.. Nichol. and Macumber Ac-
tion upon receipt for property attached by the
plaintiff Sheriff Of Chittcnlen County, on mesnc
pI"ccts' Inc fIiln'lH aitcr the aihehIci tuhsttu-
ton of 1850 came into force, wn' duly elected and
Commissioned as sheriff Of said County. Before
terns upon the dutlc; Of his Office, he, with his
surctics, citercl into a rccognrancc for The due
performance Of tho same, t''ore it' first assistant
'"'''' =" M ''""Y ''"'' oi sad County accord
'Ns 70 Tue statute ma'o IN conformity 10 tho tom
S,u'''" d, 1t oN's'ou previous 10 the Amendment
'' '''o' lie 'h'h entered upon the execution OF
MS o'ce' AM made the attachment and took tho
receipt III question Inc property was 'uy ehafi
III execution lhe constitution OF ls.o required
- ''1
49,, ,..., '"' ''I''
,,Nt,r-l
rrorc,tv md that Mi. .,,. mich, ho -o-,riod ~
,r,c,i.,,I bo,yyoop ,Jo ,,,,o ,o,,ios aud in ,bo,
,o,- ,ho ,s,o,,,,l e,,, so.,i,,
80, ,tou,,, ,r il .Lo, ,,;u.;e :, nab, ,,.o
.,,,.,..,. ..,,- ,,,. 49, ,I,;,,;rt, c,uu
.'.,. c,s.n
o.,,aI ;, r.,,iro o..io, Sc .ta t..;.io,,ro
or',, -. .,,h o,.i., VA ,,,on
.",., .,:,,
''C'' ,' ',,.I' -" ,','7't
III 49,. .,,r.-iaI.i ,h.-. ro,,ai,oJ
,, ,;,ir
C,..., e,,-..,r ,.t,
c-,.,h ,.,.. e.
.,,,a.,r .,.,'.', .... v,,..' ,,-,si..r
no. III Ietchcr and Lyon w. fIetcher' N''
'u'nP''' On Iroh''sory more p'y"''o TO oe'ror'
ana inc property oil tho estate OF Ih'na' f'e'eher
L. 4
mehcc' were appointed by tho Probate Court "i-
Of 'ai estate from "h'eh appointment
'''' 4'''' al N'''' "fps'''u'
Inc defendant ntter"ard' and before the term Of
the county court to wh'ch the appeal was taken
h'ed IN the Probate Court written request that
the appeal might be dropped al the same was not
entere IN the appellate Court He'd that the ap-
peal merely suspended tue powers OF tue pIAintIhs
and that the withdrawal thereof revived their
power m 'nt'' Judgment Tor piaintih. Under
WOOD nara LOT p'a'h''H weston SHAW i'F de-
l'hdan''
NO. i''-burgess TO- " Sauiers Judgment for
palnths affirmed, without argument Smith for
plaintiff
No'lN'- SmalIcy v'Soragen Judgment reversed,
ana judgment Tor plaintiff Smiley tor plaintiff
Hard for defendant.
No. l9'-Edmund' Admit W Follett ct al Ar
peal from Chan'ery' Decree Tor orator. and case
remandcd to tho Court of Chancery to carry the
decree into execution Edmuni' for orator
Mack Tor defendants
no. Eo'-Colchester vs. Cnlv'r ct al. Appeal
from 'hancery' Inc man question IN tho cause
was one OF fact Tho decree "t the chancellor for
''ml'''ns the Will was reversed ana the case re-