Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1880-02-27

supreme Court
jacob chase q. Ira A. ,Shor.-An action of
trover for lot of lumber. The plaintiff
claimed the lumber under sale from his son,
Abram Chase. Defendant, who was a deputy
sheriff, attached the lumber as the property
of Abram. The questions in the case were,
first, whether the property had been so de-
livered to plaintiff that the sale was perfect
ed so that the lumber was no longer liable to
attachment; second, whether the plaintiff
had not by his conduct estopped himself from
asserting claim to it, The Supreme Court
affirmed the judgment of the County Court,
and rendered judgment for plaintiff.
Asa S. Boyd .. TorR IF RcddyJoro. The
Judgment of the County Court was reversed
and new trial granted.
Lerjs N. Hart .. 7o,ra IF jamaica. De
PENDANT was in possession of land owned by
the town. under lease. He neglected to pay
the rent agreed, and the town sued him, in
an action of ejectment, recovered final judg-
ment and took execution against his body.
Defendant claimed that the action was one
founded on contract, and execution could on
ly issue against his goods, chattels and estate.
He bought this writ of dUdjtd quorcld to set
aside the execution against his body. The
court decided that the execution was properly
issued, and rendered judgment for defend
ant
r.. H. Datenpot o. z. p. CdmpJM -
This was a Chancery suit in which the plain
tilf claimed to recover damages for an alleged
violation of n contract. 1t appeared that the
defendant was formerly of the firm of Camp
bell q Cudworth, and was engaged in the in
surance business. That he sold out his inter
est in the good will of the firms business to
the plaintiff for 500 and agreed not to en-
gage in the business in opposition to said
Davenport or his former partner. The plain
till claimed that Mr. Campbell had not full
filled his agreement The defendant conccd.
ed that he had taken twenty-five applications
for insurance in the territory retained by
plaintiff upon the dissolution of the firm Of
Cudworth q Davenport but insisted that
they were applications which he had a right
to take under his contract, as the plaintiff
could nSF'have obtained them. Defendant
claimed that he had done no insurance bust
ness in opposition to plaintiff and that what
ever he did as President of the Union Fire
Insurance Co., was done with the consent of
the plaintiff, and that Davenport never made
any objection to his acting in that capacity.
The court did not announce any decision in
this case
IIm. j. Perry C. To,on IF PDtaey. Plain
tiT was injured on highway in Putney by
being thrown over an embankment, as he
claimed. Defendant claimed that the notice
did not answer the statute, and thnt the
County Court erred in admitting evidence
tending to show the injuries suffered, and
that it improperly excluded evidence of dec
larations of plaintiffs wife. in his presence
| The verdict and judgment Of the County
Court was for plaintiff to recover Sll0o.33
This Court reversed that judgment and rem
dered Judgment for plaintiff for $50
HeHJy c. HHHrd c. v. h. MT. Liz, Is
sur. This WAS an action of covenant on
a policy of insurance. Defendants filed a
| general demurrer to the plaintiff declaration,
! claiming that the plaintiff could sustain no
action in any court, and if he could, that his
suit should have been brought in IA court of
| equity instead OF law. The County Court
rendered judgment for plaintiff This judg-
| lltul NhS TcNtIStN anu lllt JlhlIAlu nun -hull-
| cd.
A1tdre,r j. clark c. 7Homds Smith. The
| question in this case was whether one Fair
banks was joint owner or partner with one
Damon L. Cheney, so that the defendant, who
was creditor or Fairbanks, had rightfully
attached a quantity of lumber The court
held Fairbanks had no attachabe interest in
the lumber and reversed the judgment of the
county court, and rendered judgment for
! plaintiff for the value of the lumber.
In the chaucery suit of Eurekd NdrJh Go.
e. Windsor NanGfdctnyiHg Co., the court ac-
cepted the Masters report and ordered de-
cree for the orator, according to the former
mandate, deducting 5000 for the machine,
! which orators have for their own property.
The cases of .Sdydh VI. LQHde r. IVm. II.
! LyHds, and Seth l.. RdHddH @. Joseph Far
man, are undecided and with the court
The cases of PAHetuS ArerU T. GGiYs II.
Smith, and .Syi,cster Smith c. UrioA K.ag,-
J'ry, were settled.