The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1878-01-25
ADDISON county supreme Court--Jnnu-
ary Term. 1878.

associate justices.
The term nominnlly commenced on
Monday, but nothing was done and tl,t
/ Judges were not present.
Tuesday morning, the first case wa.
callcd
tomas v. SmUH vs.. The 1OrV Oj
1dd'son. Judgment of county court
affirmed. Stewart x Eldridgc fol
plaintiff. Hard for defendant.
f Hiram Thompson ri al VS.. Royyjp,U
carl. Action of cjcctmcnt brought b,
the children of Bctscy Thompson, Ia
recover about twenty-five acres of land
with house and barn thereon. In 1876,
Davis Ii. Rich decided this land in the
words following, to wit: 81 hereby
give, grant, sell and convey unto Bet
: scy Thompson and her legal heirs by
Samuel Thompson, Jr., and assigns for
ever, certain piece oflandv described
ho6eadum, ''to have and to hold the
above granted premises TO the said Bet
soy, heirs and assigns, TO them and
their own use aud behoof forever"
In 1860, Betsey Thompson and Samuel
Thompson, Jr., decided the premises by
quit-claim deed to Rollin Nj. Carl, and
Samuel Thompson, .Jr., took mort
gage deed back for the support of him
self and Bctsey for their natural lives.
In 1869, Betscy died and the heirs by
Samuel Thompson demanded the
premises and brought suit. The legal
question at issue was, did Bctsey take
the whole title to the premises by the
deed of Davis u. Rich or only a life
estate! And what was the effect of the
qui-claim deed? The plaintiff claimed
l,p
and her legal heirs hy Samuel Thomp-
son. Jr., WAS the same in effect rs if il
read to Bct>cy Thompson and her chill
drcn by Samuel Thompson, and there
fore conveyed an estate tail that at most
could not be enlarged into any more
than life estate by the habeadua un-
der the general statutes of Vermont.
The defendant contended that bv the
deed they received the whole estate in
fee smple-the largest estate known TO
the law. s. II. Davis for plaintiff.
Hawkins and Stewart for defendant
With court.
Torn Of SaiiSbUyy vs.. Torn Of
ChiHeaden. judgement of county
court affirmed.
Towa q Siarhs6oro vs.. Torn Of
Huntington. T.. w. J. Hawkins and
ii.
Shaw and Hard for defendant. An
action of assumpsi: 10 recover for dis
bursemcnts made a town pauper, in
1870. She was sick and unable TO be
removed at the time the order of
removal was made, and remained so
until September, 1876, when she was
removed to Huntington. The copies
Of the order and warrant of removal
served upon Huntington were not true
copies of the record, also the original
record did not contain all of the statute
requirements. The main question was
if the omission aforesaid rendered the
proceedings of the adjudication of
her legal settlement invalid, whether
Huntington was bound TO take any no
iice of the copies served on them; and
if said adjudication was unappealed
from, whether or not the defendant
could attack those proceedings in this
suit. With court.
Joshun 1fWoOd vs.. Termou cut
tings. administrator. Ormsbcc for
orator. Stewart for defendant. Bill
in chanccry, in which Atwood claims
to have mortgaecd to Cutting certain
lands in Wisconsin,, to secure Cutting
against loss from having signed II note
with him, Atwood, as security The
note was subsequently paid by Cutting,
and still later Cutting obtained title TO
the lands in question under a tax sale,
and took a tax deed of same which he
still holds. Later Cutting brought suit
against Atwood to recover the amount
paid by him as surety with accumulated
interest. This suit was brought by
Atwood to compel Cutting to apply
towards the amount by him pnid as
surety, the value of the land at the time
he took the fax deed. value of the land
agreed to have been S22O. orator
claiming that the taking of the tax deed
was by his acquicsccnce equivalent to
and in legal effect foreclosure of the
mortgage. Defendant claimed that he
is under no obligations 10 apply the
value of the land rs demanded by ora
tor, and that in any event the orator
cannot ask more than IL right of rcdrmp-
ton in tl,e lands. Defendant has IN
meantime paid rs taxes the sum of
Sls.2i. With court.
Gcorge BroOks W. EUgcne s. Enrr.
The question involved in thi, issue ON
trial al the June term, 1877. which was
submitted 10 the jury, was, whether AN
attachment of a COW, made by the
defendant. the constable Of the town of
l!ris'ol' was or wns not competent.
the p'ainlili rs an authorized person
had taken the cow ona subsequent
process ana Mr.. Farr without further
process TOOK the COW again into his
own possession and sold il on the exc
rnti"n i'll his hands, and this was an
action To recover the value. Mardin
ana Spalding for plaintiff. Rider and
stewart for defendant. Verdict for The
plaihlif. sl' so. the amount of the
execution t"'he satisfied with this pro-
perry. The defendant, upon trial,
requested The court to charge the jury
That the pialn!iil had no authority TO
serve the writ, because not properly
authorized by the Justice, and that no
lien was created by said attachment as
against the defendants prior attach
I...l