The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1857-04-18
Supreme Court.
Reported for The Caledonian.

The Supreme Court commenced its annu
al session at this place on Thursday of last
week, and closed last Monday evening. Thi:
unusually long session was occasioned in part
by the interruption of Fast Day. and YET
more by the large number of cases on the
docket and the importance of some of them
Sixteen cases were argued, and twelve de
cisions made. We give brief statements O
the cases and opinions in the cases decided
with some memoranda respecting the case.
yet pending.
NATHAN STONE IS. DAVID KNAPP
This was an action of trespass on the free
hold 1t appeared that the defendant hac
right of way over the plaintiffs land b,
virtue of license from the plaintiff. and tina
while exercising that right he left down tn,
bars by which he entered, so that cattle came
in from the highway and did damage.
The court held that where an authorit,
was conferred By lar, an abuse of tire author
i,y would make the party trcspa>>er ob in
'ft0. But 1t was otherwise in regard to
mere omission. by one having authority i,
.t"ct to do anything which he was under i'm
piled Obligation to do while acting under
that authority, so as to render him liable to
an acton Of tresrass. The plaintiffs only
remedy is by action on the case.
For plaintiff, o. T. Brown and b. n. Da
Wis; for Defendant, j. ID. Stod,lard.
IlrrCIllNS < lIAZLETINE Is. WM MAR
sHALL.-This was an acton Of trover for 81
tIerceS Of starch. The plaintiff clined title
by purchase iro'n S. &. ilu,chms, j an. 10th
1873. the starch then being in the possession
OF stephen Haley. They exercised .:ea:
t'i'--"r.'c to .rt possession Of the property or
"a Wv" 'o'ir. to !i,lcv ri the sale, bat be-
''rr they dl either, the letcnJ.rt, a credit
or c: :. G.. lIrc!inS. procured wit ..,;r>t
hrl. ard with An Officer .ynnt AMI attached
N" starch rs his property. and removed i,
rom lid'ey> possession, on the Il.h d,v
OF .)inuarv. Prior to the attachment Mr.
shall was notified oi the sale 70 tn" plaintiffs
In August. 1873, til" starch was sold under
the >'au'" T.'-r air., tie sale Of reri~hahlr
Nropcr'. taken IN m">nr process, and within
six years from The SIZE, hut more than six
years from tie ori-i.,. t.h;r,. the suit was
hr9nrh,
Th- Conr: held, that to perfect sale a,
against creditor. of thu vendor there mus,
be an nr',M change of possession. in sem.
enc of the ways recognized by frequent de-.
cisions as valid. No amount o. dili,.nr.
IN end"avorihg to chang III. possession will
avail II n" chang is no. artuaNv ACCOMPLISH
ed. Inr decisions in New Hampshire and
Conn"ciru'. whih allow a reasonable TIM.
for taking Possession, ID not apply in Yer
mont Ia ia s. States, the omission T, tax.
possession is merely a i'ai.. o: fraud, in this
State it is conclusive evidence OF trnul As
against creditors. Ii is quite immstcriai that
the a,;acl.in. creditor had been n,'itir! Of
the sale. 1t was notice Of vo!abI. sale.
which he was under no Obligation to respect
The taking and reinovin. the property WAS
per- Sc conversion. for which an action
would immc,!i .ttly he The statute Of limi-
tatl"ns therefore brran Immediately to run.
and tho subsequent sale III! not I'VE a new
RIGHT OF action
For 7! aln;!'>. D. Y Davis AMI S. b Col.
by; tor Defendant. j. Potts.
HANOVER CnHH IS. WN HAlL.-Thi<
was an action OF aS>umpslt. The plaintiff
agreed by rarol to buy Of James Drown a
piece Of land in Sheffield, and to pay part
of the purrha-" money in cash. and for :he
balance 10 give his note secured Lv mort
Sa"e ON the same land. After completing
the contract, he learned that ;he legal title
was IN the defendant, upon which he derl
TX" having '''. '"i''0 10 GO with defendant
except to tax. deed from him. Alta snb
segment interview with the defendant. he
agrcr! to give deed within week, and
rhrrruron The plaintiff paid him 500. tn.
cash part OF he purchase money. Within
the time limited. defendant executed deed
and rendered 1t TO plaintiff, and demanded
that plaintiff should execute the notes and
mortgage As originally anreeh. The plaintiff
declined to DO this, demanded his 500 lack.
AMI brought this action to recover it,
The Court held that although the contract
respecting the Ian! was voidable under the
statute OF Frauds. it was not void. but consti-
tu'ed good Justification for whatever wa.
done III par: fU!flllment of it, The defend
ant could not be compelled to convey the
land, and if he had refused to convey, this
action would we'll lie; but as the defendant
had committed no breach of t.e contract.
but was ready and willing to perform it, and
hal in fact performed it on his part,the plain.
tiff could not disaffirm the contract and re-
cover what he has advanced upon it.
For plaintiff, G. G. and G. w. Cahoon
for defendant, L. Bartlett.
JAMES BRAY US. DANIEL WHEELER. JR.
This was an action of asumpsit for work
and labor The plaintiff bein. mino. l3t
years old. was emancipated by his father, in
consideration of some property belonging to
plaintiff, which had gone into the fathers
possession. After this the defendant hired
The niaInt;0 To work for hin, NJ a. !. .,,..4l