Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1861-01-11
Orleans County Court.

Jan. lOtll. 1901.
af'-.+=-'a7@~'"'s'--'s"-'''"-s
Orleans County Court.
Gcorqe J. Kendall as. George Larcy-This
was an action in troycr for the conversion of
threshng machine. In the month of septem-
Der, 1858, the defendant bought Of the plaintiff
throshmg machine md 10y the terms Of the
trade, the machine was 70 remain the plaintiff
until it was paid for. plaintiff claimed that
the first half Of the purchase money was to be
paid within ryomonth,; thc defendant claimed
that he was to pay as fast as lie earned it from
running the machine. u was agreed by both
plaintiff and defendant that the other was to be
paid ut the cId Of the year. During the fall OF
1853 the defendant removed the machine into
Canada as the defendant claims, by the consent
Of the plaintiff The plaintiff denied having
given his consent; and claimed that the remo-
val of the machine into Canada, and the refusal
Of the defendant to tell the plaintiff where
nbouts in Canada it was, which wa, proven,
amounted to conversion The plaintiff also
claimed that the defendant had not paid the
first half Of the purchase money as he agreed
and that by the terms of the contract, this full
ure to pay gave him the right to demand the
property, and a refusal amounted to ccaFeI-
sion.
This action was brought ia January, 1873
and the defendant claimed that he had paid the
plaintiff ms fast as he had earned the money 7
from the usc Of the machine and having done
so, the plantf had no right to the possession
Of the property, while right must have existed
at the time in order to enable him to recover.
The court charged the jury that if they found
anything due the plaintiff from the defendant I
and payable when the action commenced, the .
plaintiff would he entitled 20 recover; bat f|
by the terms Of the contract there was nothing
payable on the machine at thai time, the plain
tiff would fail in his action on the ground ofnot
having right to the possession Of The property
at the time the suit was commenced
Verde. for the defendant, that he recover his
costs.
Robinson Edwards IS Stewart for the plain
tiff; A & L. Bartlett, and j. II. Prcntiss for The .
defendant
II. p. CaafeH rs. B. II, U0oster.-Tllis was q
an action in ejccmcnt to recover possession of @
a certain house and barn situated in the village c,
of Derby LINE The facts in the case are about "
the same with those in number So, which was a y,
lot,rcor ~, s,,,, ,,.i,. ,..itr, ,,i.
.,l;.,-u 49,. .,...,.'r -,
-, -. T.
49, - ,N.'7 '.
- -.
.,,t.,,a, -, -, -, 49,, {
so' A"9 Pl"''1'h NI'.ihcu hC was " HV'' wy
premises one year or more, or until Morrill,
shonld soil them There Nas some evidence
,..,,.:.. =. M, ~, 20 a., ,,.,,.t,. .,,I
iel't''' |" Non"l',oi'u' ''''N w. '''q F''i
the time he took the lease OF IT, Inc plahtiii
claimed that in law the defendant was only a
,,,a,+ at ,ill md I,,,l t ,,it ot tl,, rs,,,,gt
OF the landlord Inc aeIehuaii c"uiis' con-
tended that it was a lease from year to wear and,
as .,,cb tba aoGr,l,,,+ ,y,s outirsd ia si,.
W..
mounts noucc' Inc PI"u'n Iutli'er 'Iuhtu
that the defendant consented TO the plaintiffs
taLin, tI,e 1oaso and soil lac would Ic,yc. tbo
va.
premises iHIs' tnc oe'eAu''h' uei'''u
The court changed the jury that the sale pro-
ven being of a conditional character and never
,.e..,....l.f'., .,...,.,.
naNi's o''" ''ii'e" ou'' was NOT sum s''' DO
would eptitle Morrill, TO the premises The