Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1866-11-30

the inCumbrance to the defendants, and there |
fore could not be set up as against the deed
Of the grantor to them. What the decision
would have been, il the words "signer and
sealer &C. had been inserted, the court did
not declare.
Decree Of the chancellor Diminishing the bill
affirmed.
Anderson, Sargent s. Co. Us. Geo. w. "
John c. Hardy-decree for def Affirmed
without hearing. Omsby for plf., Farnham
for deft's.
Exrs. Of Timothy Morse, rs Durant d
Adams Exceptions by Plaintiff. Ormsby,
d. 81 w, Clark, for Pla's. l.. 81 r., Hebard,
for DTS.
Asa Low mortgaged certain property to
Morse; Morse afterwards went into posses
sion OF the same, and rented the premises to
Defendants and they agreed to suffer no
waste to the premises Low afterwards re-
deemed the premises, and claimed that Defts.
while in under Morse. committed waste, and
this was brought in the name Of the exeou-
tors Of Morse for the benefit Of Low.
Held, that Low could not sustain the ac-
tion in the PlH's name, and affirmed the judg
meut Of the Court below for the Del's.
Isaac w. Fogg ct ais Us. Hiram Turner &
Trustees-Excepuons by Defendant. Den.
ison, for Plfs, Ferrin, Lamb q Hebard, for
DTS.
The Defendants bought a watch Of the
plaintiff and gave their note for the same,
payable in goods out of a store where delen-
dants dealt, and at the same time gave plain
uf an order on said store for the goods, to
the amount of said note. The plaintiff
took the note and order, and from time to
time as they wanted goods they called for
them after the order was part paid, the
merchant failed, and plaintiff called on de-
PENDANTS for the balance Of the note Deien-
daots claimed that the pfs not having col
ected the order or given notice to deft's, they
had discharged the deft's from the same.
Plf's to rebuff this claim offered psrol testi~
mony TO prove that at the time they took
the order, def's requested them not to call
for it all at once, but to call loi 1t as they
wanted it. This testimony was objected to
by the defts and admitted by the Court.
Held that the evidence vas properly admit
ted by the Court, and that the admission of
said testimony did not conflict with the rule
Of law that parol evidence cannot be received
to vary written contract. This was prop
erly received to show that plH omission 10
collect the order was at the request Of deft's.
Judgment for plf affirmed,
VIM H. Carter Us. VIM. II NJ. Howard
Exceptions by Plaintiff Dickey ~ Wouhen,
for plH, Farnham u Hebard, for def
This is an action tor services rendered deft's
wife. Some of the charges were made more
Ihan six years before the suit was brought,
and some within six years. No plea Of the
Statute Of Limitations was filed in the County
Court. The case was referred to a referee.
The def; yetore the referee plead the Statute
Of Limitations, to all the charges Of more
than six years standing; and as to the other
items the referee reported the following facts:
The dett was committed to jail for a criminal
offence, and his wife brought libel for "a
r divorce, and obtained an INDUCTION against
him from disposing Of his property. That
while def. was in all the plf. rendered the
service for the wife for which a recovery was
claimed in this suit and charged the same to
The wife who had property. The wife after
wards died, and pf. presented his account tt
the commissioners on the estate Of the wife
and it was By them disallowed.
Held, lst. That as the case was referred