Bradford opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1874-1881, 1875-05-08
Gilman Bagley, } ou, Cor,tr corrt
.,o p;alor, { December Term 1874.


Whereas Gilman Bagley of Topsham, in
the County ofNrangc, commenced his action
OF Covenant broken, against AlOnzO Richard
son of said TOpsham. returnable to the COun-
ty Court begun and held ut Chelsea in and for
! the County of Orange OH the third Tuesday of
December A. ID. 1874, declaring in substance
that the said Richardson on the 81 day of
April A. ID. 1871, at said Topsham, Executed
and delivered to the said Bagey his deed of
certain piece of land in said TOpsham de-
scribed as follows: Being all the land now
own on the South side Of the road lead
ESQ called, by the grist mill and the black
smiths shop belonging to Almon Pearsons and
Southcrly by n line running from the South
Easterly corner of said shop. on the Nathan
lihgley land to the river. and Easterly by said
river, being the mill house and land SO called"
All for the consideration of three hundred dol
lars, and that said Richardson did in and by
said deed covenant with the said Blglcv.
that said premises were free from every in
cunbrance, and that he, the said Richardson.
had good right and title to convey the same,
and that he would warrant and defend the
! same, against all lawful claims whatever, and
that the said Richardson has not kept his
covenants, but has broken them in this, that
the said Richardson on the 2ist day of May
A. D. 1870, executed mortgage deed, signed
and sealed BY him. of said premises, to James
NJ. Smith, William Whitcomb and BENZ. Cook,
partners, and doing business under the firm,
name and style af Smith, Whitcomb & Cook,
of Barre, in the County Of Washington. And
that said mortgage has in no way been dis
charged. hut has been iOreclOsed against the
said Richardson and the Plaintiff And that
there is now due in Equity on said mortgage
about nineteen hundred dollars and the said
Defendant has in no way paid said sum, or
provided for the payment of it that the Plain
thu has been put to great expenses. and has
lost entirely said premises, and has been put to
great expense in repairing said PREMISE and
has lost the same. And the Defendant refuses
to keep his covenants.
And demanding one thousand dollars dam
ages.
And said suit having been duly entered in
said Court by the Plaintiff, and it appearing
that the said Richardson resides out of the
state, and that no personal notice has been
had by him of the tendency of said suit. Said
suit is continued for notice to the defendant
to the next stated term of said Court, next,
to be holden at Chelsea, as aforesaid. on the
first Tuesday of June A. d. 1875. And it is
ordered by said Court that notice be given to
said Defendant. by publishing the substance
of the Plaintiffs declaration and this order of
said Court, and the time to which said action
is continued. in the Bradford Opinion, news
paper printed at Bradford. in said Orange
County, three weeks successfully, the last of
which publications to be at least twenty days
previous to said first Tuesday of June A. d.
1875. that said Defendant may appear and an
swer to said snit which shall be sufficient no
tice to said defendant of the tendency OF said
suit to said defendant.
Dated at Chelsea. in said Orange County,
this 18th day of April A. d. 1875.
S. b. HED.Rp Deputy Clerk.
Il. M. HARVEY, Atty. for Plaintiff.