Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1886-01-29
/RoDlson COUNTY SUPREME COURT.

The January term of the Addison coun-
ty Supreme court was formally opened
Monday forenoon, but no cases were
heard till Tuesday morning. There were
then present Chief Justice Royce and As
sociate Justices Ross, Powers and Taft.
Judge Ross took the place of Judge
Walker, originally assigned here, because
the former was unable to attend the re-
cent term of the Franklin county SUI
preme court on account of the illness of
his wife, who has since died, and Judge
Walker went to st. Adams for him.
Among the out-of-town attorneys in at
tendance were Hon. +. Il. Hard, Hon.
Daniel Doberts, Hon. W. l.. Buanap and
G. W. Wales of Burlington; Col. j. II.
Lucia of Montpelier: and Hon. G. W.
Grandey and Hon. i. +. Woodbridge of
Vergennes.
There were only II eases ON the docket.
OF these. eleven were heard, occupying
the time of the court till Wednesday
noon. when, after decisions in part of the
cases had been rendered. the court adj
iourned without dav.
The first heard was Grin lIoyts admr.
against Edwin lIoyt ct al. This was a
petition for the foreclosure of a mortgage
of land. From the decree in favor of the
petitioner the defendant appealed. the
ground being that the nominal plaintiff.
Grin lIoyt, was insane and imbecile at
the time the suit was brought. The de-
cree of the court of chancery was affirmed
and the prayer of the petition granted.
The case was argued for the petitioner by
Hon. L. X. Hard, and for the defendant
by Henry 5. Footc.
In ARENAS Nichols against Edward
Fuller and trustee. L. lockwood. there
was judgment for the plaintiff in the
court below and the trustee was adiudged
chargeable for SOL less his costs: cxcep-
tons by trustee. The Judgment of the
county court was affirmed. A. p. Tup-
per for plaintiff; James NJ. Sade for
trustee.
In admr. of G. l.. Church against Thos.
H. Mcleod, apt, the Judgment for plain
tiff, for S2j, was affirmed. This was an
action of trover for the conversion of a
COW upon which there was an outstand-
ing unpaid and duly recorded lien, but
which was unknown to the defendant at
the time he bought the animal: and the
suit was brought to recover the value OF
the heifer. being less than the amount
due upon the lien note. 4. p. Topper
for plaintin'; Mr.. Mcleod appeared foi
himself, assisted by Hon. Daniel Roberts
James Preston against the Vermont
Shade Roller Co. and the same against
the Brooks Edge Tool Co. were heard to-
gethcr. the points at issue being idcntic-
al. The plaintiff was MORTGAGE of Ger.
tain premises in Waltham and the condi-
ton of the mortgage as modified by al
oral agreement was that after the pay.
ment of $1,000 upon a demand note OF
$3.50 the mOrtgagors, Harvey & Wash
burn, should pay the balance of the note
as fast as they realized anything out OF
the timber. bark and wood upon the
premises over and above the cost of cut
ting and marketing it. The referee founC
that the condition was broken as early a
the Goth of December, 1852, but proceed
ings for the foreclosure of the mortgag,
: were not begun until the following April
The plaintiff claims that rs mortgage,
. all the wood and timber cut after the de
fault belonged to him; and the actions
against the defendant companies wer,
for the conversion of lumber cut upon
the mortgaged premseS-lumber whicl
they purchased of the mortgagors afte
the default. There was Il pro torbtd de
cree in the court below for the plaintiff
, The real defendant in both cases is tn
, assignee of Daniel Z. Harvey, one of tn
= mortgagors. The real question involved
f was whether the silence of the plaintiff
: after the defanlt operated rs a continu
e ance of the license to cut the timber. Tn
G supreme court rendered judiment for tn
[ defendants on the report. c. NJ. Wild
A for plaintiff: Roberts and Lucia for de
. PENDANTS.
: In the cases of Ellen l.. Benton agains
: W. :. Holland and Philander Hank,
e admir- against Holland Il Parker tn
|. questions of law were the same. Thes
u suits were brought against the defendants
f who pleaded the statute of limitation
o and discharge in insolvency. They wer
petitioned into insolvency while tn
= United States bankruptcy act was still i
G force, making the insolvency proceeding
e under the State law invalid. and tn
!. statute of limitations had run unless tn
n payment of the dividend under the inso
It vency proceedings had renewed the claim
e But the court held that the payment {
II the dividend was not voluntary pay
II ment and did not revive the debt. Juds
If ment for the defendants in the cOul
l. below was affirmed. Lucia for plaintiff,
l. Il. W. Wales and W. l.. Burnaap for IL
l. PENDANTS.
Annthnr a tho ,.aSns hnarl NNas (lri