Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1862-03-20

as an equitable estoppcl to his maintaining this
suit-and that the rule of damages was the full
value of the cattle, and not merely the loss of
the use Of the oxen till the term of credit had
expired, Wooley being onsweroble over to the
purchaser from the first vendor.
This action was in fact brought by such pur-
chaser in Wooley's name, with his consent, for
his own benefit but the Court did not base its
decision on this tact.-Chas. b. Eddy, for plain
tiff; A. StoddOrd, II. E. Stoughton, for defend
ants.
LoRiNG HALL VS.. JAMES NJ. NILES.
IL Id, that the return on writ of attachment
made by leaving a copy in the Town Clerks Of
flee of "al the hay" in certain barn, included
quantity of rowen then in the barn lying dis
tnct from much larger quantity of other hay.
The plaintiff claimed the hay by virtue of
pledge to him, and the defendant on an attach
ment, and the case turned on the question
whether there had been sufficient change of
possession to enable the Pledge to hold it
The facts are too multiarious to be detailed IN
newspaper report Judgment for the plain
tiff afIirmed.-C. n. Davenport, for plaintiff
J. y. Bradley for defendant.
JOEL no1roN VS.. BILLINGS TAYLOR.
Judgment for the plaintiff affirmed, by con-
sent without argument.-A. Stoddard, for
plaintiff; Butler & Wheeler Z. E. Kellogg, for
defendant.
L. Il. LAMsoN VS.. BENJAMIN +. MORSE, Er AIS
Judgment for plaintiff affirmed, by consent,
without argument-E. Kirkland, for plaintiff
c. X. Field, Kittridge Haskins, for defendants.
STATE VS. CHARLES WHEELER.
Indictment for passing counterfeit money
Icld,-lst, That in ting out the tenor of the
counterfeit bill, it is no variance that the name
of the President is written ]. NJ. Thompson,
while on the bill it is J. NJ. Thompson. 2d,
that the words in the margin of the bill "Cdpi-
tai Stock 100000 secured By pledge IF $780,
600 Pennsylvania per cent. bonds" is no part
of the bill and need not be set out in the tenor.
Sd, In describing the bill it was alleged that
it "purported to have been issued by a bank
duly chartered &C., "and the bill produced on
its face had no such purport
! Held, That such allegation is not to be con-
I strued as an averrment that such purport ap-
/ peared on the bill, but only that such bank
existed and issued bills, and that the counter
felt bill purported to be the genuine bill of said
bank The Court in delivering their opinion
said they should have had difficulty in so hold
ing, had the question been a new one, but they
felt themselves bound by decisions, referring to
one in this State in particular.
4h, The indictment contained four counts,
and the County Court had directed the Jury to
acquit the prisoner on two of them. the evil
depce failing to warrant a conviction. The
jury however returned general verdict of
guilty; this by inadvertance was overlooked,
and the attention of the Court was not called
to the irregularty till after the close Of the term
Held, that the respondent should have called
the attention of the County Court to the sub
ec., who could have corrected the error, and
not having done so, this Court would not inter
fere. All respondents exceptions were over
ruled, and he was sentenced to the States
Prison for three years.-J. ID. Bridgman, States
Attorney; c. n. Davenport, II. Z. Stoughton
for respondent.
JOHN W. BABCoCK VS.. SCHOOL DISTRICT 40. 9 IN
GuILFoRD.
There are two cases between these parties
the decision of which depended on the SAINT
facts, and they were argued together. Afte
the cases were pending for term or two in tht
County Court, the parties submitted the sub
G iect matter of both suits to arbitrators whC
made their award, finding certain sum due th
e plaintiff, which the defendant thereupon paid
= The arbitrators made no mention of the suit
in their award, and it did not appear that the.
: knew of their existence. The two cases lie
mained on the docket of the County Court fo
J. several terms after the award was made.
Held, that the submission and award WORKED
t discontinuance of the cases, and that the de
= fendan recover costs subsequent to the date O
t the award.-E. Kirkland, for plaintiff; Geo
Howe, for defendant.
THOMAS MANNING VS.. SAMUEL II NEwCoMB, ET Al
:. Held, that where parties agree to exchang
one piece of property for another, as in thi
i case horse for a COW, the delivery by one par
!. ty to the other of the property to be exchange
by him, even if it be accepted by the othe
II party, does not vest in him the property he
Y by contract to receive in exchange. An aclio
for breach of contract is his only remedy i
T. case of a refusal to deliver the article so cor
tracted to be given in exchange. The part
fulfilling his part of the trade by delivering
the other the specified article cannot take tn
property promised to him, without consent, an
'e is liable in trespess for so doing. An exchang
lie is not a sale, and neither party gets any it'll
b as he does in case of a SALE until the contra
u of exchange is perfected by actual delivery
el Judgment for plaintiff afiirmed.-J. ID. Bra'
III ley, f. Kirkland, for plaintiff Geo. Howe, f'
n defendant
L. JACOB CHASE VS.. LEWIS HARRINGTON AND TRusTE
s, Judgment dischargng trustee afiil med Will
I. out argument, by consent.-H. n. Hix, Il
plaintiffs S. p. Flagg, c. n. Davenport, f
trustee.
of LEWIS S. EDDY VS.. sILAs DAVIS.
in Replevn for seven cattle. The plant
DIS claimed to own the cattle, and the defenda
ly claimed title to them by purchase from thi
hd person, who asserted a right to sell the catt