Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1859-01-21
SUPREME
CHrrrESDEy CorSrY.
JAN. Term, 1859, (

sition Of tho cases standing upon the docket wa,
as follows
No. ]. N. BickneHu. Gro. Biekn,H, s.. Hal, h J. j.
Bourne. This was an appeal from Chanccry. Geo.
Bickncll bought Of Bourne n mall piece Of land in
Undcrhill, md took n deed thereof, which wasdc-
posted with Hale, ms he claimed n. security for
advances made to George, and for assistance rem
dered him in erecting a shop upon the premises
The Orator after this, ms a creditor Of
George attached the land and was about to set it
off on execution, when George quit-claimed his in
tcrest in the premises to the Orator. The decd
from Bourne to Geo. Bicknell, which was in IIale's
hands, never was recorded, and this bill was
brought to compel Hale to place it on record. Held,
POLAND j., delivering the opinion, that inasmuch
ms the Orator had an interest in the premises he
had n right to have that interest, whatever it was.
appear on record, and Hale was dccrced to procure
the deed to be recorded. Hard 4 French for Ora
ter. F. G. Hill for defendant.
No. 2. Geo. W. Har,shornev v. Nanny Hort,horne.
This was a petition to annul the marriage between
the parties. Decree of nullity granted. Mack
for petitioner. C. Russell for pctitionee.
No. 3. Ell Stearns v. John Manson and Elisha
Miller. This was an appeal from Cbnncery The
Orator alleged that he was n creditor Of Munson,
and recovered judgment against him that before
the recovery of said judgment Munson was the
owner Of certain real estate in Wllliston that he
conveyed said real estate to defendant Miller to
dcfraud his (Munson's) creditors ;that aftcrwnrd
Orator levied his execution upon said premises !;
md lp pro ypl tbot tlo de fepdopts bc 1porond m
convey tho estate TO the Orator and paw the
amount Of his execution against Munson. Held,
ALnIs, j., delivering the opinion, that the evidence
did not show the deed from Munson to Miller
fraudulent, and the bill was dismissed VIM. Wes-
ton for Orator. C. Adams for defendant.
No. 4. .John Bradley v. John z. Chamb-lin. This
was an action on the case against the defendant as
Sheriff Of Orleans County, for the default Of one
Henry Godfrey, in collecting and refusing to pay
over the amount Of an execution in favor Of the
plaintiff against Daniel Tarbell. Tho trial below
was had merely upon the assessment # damages.
1t appeared that before the default complained of,
Mixer and Pitmnn became the owners of the judg-
ment against Tarbcll, and defendant claimed that
plaintiff could only recover nominal damages, be-
cause the action should have been brought in the
name Of Mixer and Pitman. But it was held,
PtrnpoISr, j., delivering the opinion, that the
plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount Of
the execution against Tarbell, and that the action
might he brought either in the name Of Bradley or
Mixer and Pitman. Roberts & Chittcnden for
plaintiff. Hard 4 French for defendant.
No. 5. g A. Austin v. Curtis 8. Walker. This
cos, r orrunl nj tbn General Torn, in ,Jn1y. II
was an action of assumpsit against the defendants
as cndorsers of n promissory note for 5000, made by
John Bradley. After the note in suit became due,
the plaintiff TOOK the note of said John Bradley at
four months, endorsed by II. Bradley, as collateral
security. Held, (overruling Atkinson v. Brooks,
&c Vt. and Mich. State Bank v. Leavenworth, rs
Vt.,) that this did not amount, of itself, to giving
time to John Bradley on tho note in suit, so as to
discharge the defendants as cndorsers, REpFIELD,
Gu, j., dissenting; Judgment reversed and case
remnnded. W. W. Peck for plaintiff, Hard and
French for defendants.
No. G. Noble Preston v. s. Wei, and cthu,. Lie,
with the Court.
No. Z. Hannah Tovnsend v. Admir- Of John
Downer. Continued to the General Term.
No. s. Joseph Harms V. .St,rer. aud Others.
This was an action of trespns. for an assault and
battery, alleged to have been committed upon the
plaintiff at the depot at Essex Junction. The de-
PENDANTS justified as the servants and agents Of the
Vermont md Canada Railroad Co, and alleged
that the plaintiff came to the depot of the Compa-
ny when he was ordered of by the defendants and
refusing to so, they forcibly elected him, which
was the tretpass complained Of. To which the
plaintiff replied that he had purchased a ticket to
60 t. Williston from said Z sex Junction, and was
waiting for the departure of the train on which
he had a right and was about to 60, when he was
assaulted by the defendants. Demurrer to the
replication. This case was argued at the General
Term. PIERPoISr, j., delivered the opinion. Held,
that the right of the Railroad Co. over their dcpots
was exclusive and absolute, except so far as it was
necessary for the public to resort to the depots in
transacting business with tho Company; that any
person who wished to be carried by the Company
or had business with it, had a right to 60 and
remain upon the depot in transacting such bust
ness; that the purchase Of n ticket by the plaintiff
gave him n license to remain upon the premises a
reasonable time, which license was irrevocable;
but that the replication was insufficient, inasmuch
as it did not state that the plaintiff intended to 60
to Williston in the next train, or within a reason
able time. Judgment for defendant reversed pro for
ma and case remandcd to County Court. Hard and
French for plaintiff, Edmunds for defendants.
No. .. ShaumM Bank v. PlansLur9h and Mont
real Railroad Co. This case was heard at the Gen.
eral Term. II vasn an action If ossumnsit n N n
promissory note for s2OOo, given in part payment
for steamer Francis saltu.. Defendants insisted
they were not liable, because the power Of the cor
poration did not extend to giving notes for such a
purpose. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed, BARRETT,
j., delivering the opinion. Edmunds for plaintiff,
Underwood for defendant.
No, 10. Harrison Dnrk., Y. ". Cent. Railroad
Company. Lies with the Court.
No. II. Emily s. Rouan v. J. n. Rouan. Ii
for divorce. Residence proved and bill granted.
No. IL. ", p. Brgys v. RoRa Gleason. This
was a petition for a new trial in an action on book,
in favor of Gleason against the petitioner, wherein
Gleason recovered final judgment at the December
Term Of the Supreme Court, 1854. The grounds
IF the petition were LIST, that Judge Greer, who par
~ficipatcd in the trial Of the original action in the
Court, was interested in the result of tho |
suit, and biased in favor of Gleason; ID, that pc
itioncr, since the trial Of said action, had discovered
new and material evidence in his behalf. Held,
j., that the evidence did not show that
Judge Green was either interested or prejudiced in
he natter and that the new discovered evidence
vas not of a character to warrant the belief that a
Jew trial would change the result of the case. Pc
ition dismissed. Briggs, J. A. Wing for stitioner,
for petitionee,
No. 10. w. p, Brg5, v. E.. d.. Mason and
aoHa Gleason. This was an action of trespass.
he p~leadings were very yoluminous and termina.