Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1886-01-29
ADDISON COUNTY SUPREME COURT
List of the Cases Disposed of-Court
AdiOurns Sine Die.

Adjourns Sine Die.
MlDDLEBURY, Jan. 27.-There was n
formal opening of the court Monday
morning, but no business was transacted
till Tuesday. There were fourteen cases
on the docket, among them the case of the
American Board of Foreign Missions
against j. X. Ferris administrator, which
was again continued. OF the other cases
six were in pairs, and eleven were heard
in all.
Upon the bench were Chief Justice
Royce and Associate Justices Ross,
Powers and Taft. Judge Ross takes the
place of Judge Walker who was assigned
here, the latter having recently supplied
the place of the former at the Franklin
County Supreme Court. In addition to
the Addison county bar there were pres
ent Hon. Il. r. Hard, Hon. w. l.. Bur.
nap, Hon: Daniel Roberts, George w.
Wales of Burlington.
The first case heard was Oren
Iioyt ct al. This was a petition
for the foreclosure OF mortgage of
land decree for petitioner in court below,
exceptions by defendants the ground of
defence being the insanity and imbecility
of Oren Hoyt at the time the petition was
]
prayer granted. Hon. f. II. Hard for pc
titioner; II. 5. Foote and +. f. Wood.
bridge for defendant
In the case of Artemus Nichols vs.. Ed
ward Fuller and Trustee L. lockwood
the court affirmed the judgment of the
court below, that the trustee was charge
able. A. p. Upper for plaintiff j. NJ.
Slade for trustee.
G. Il Church's administrator VS.. Il. fl.
Mcleod, was an appeal from Judgment
Tor plaintiff in an action of trover for n
COW on which Church had a lien. Judu-
ment affirmed A Z. Upper for plain
tin; Mcleod pro Sc assisted by Daniel
Roberts
james Preston VS.. Vermont Shade
Roller Co, and the same VS.. Brooks
Edge Tool Co., were actions of
trover. for the conversion of lumber
cut from the premises belonging
to the plaintiff, as mortgage. and sold
to the defendants by the mortgagors, the
real defendant being the asst nee, j. H .
Lucia of ID. p. Harvey, one of the mort
Sagors. The referee found that the CON
dltion of the mortgage was broken in
December, 1852 and the plaintiff did not
institute proceedings until the following
April, and one of the mortgagors had left
the place at the time of the default, and
it did not appear that the plaintiff knew
OF the default until the following spring
The real question was whether the silence
of the plaintiff effected Il continuance of
the license to cut timber on the premises
and whether license to both was license
to one after the other left.
There was a pro tOrnnu judgment for
the plaintiff in the County Court. This
was reversed and judgment was rendered
for defendants on the referees report G..
NJ. Wilds for plaintiff Lucia Il Roberts
for defendants.
Ellen L. Burton vs.. Holland and
Hanks administrator VS. Parker and
Holland were cases in which the statute
OF limitations and discharge in insol-
vency were pleaded. The insolvency pro-
ceedings were begun under the State law
while the United States bankruptcy law
was still in force, thus rendering invalid
the proceeding under the former The
statute had already run unless the pay
ment of the dividend under he Insolvency
proceedings revived the debt. The court
held that as the debtors were petitioned
into insolvency the payment of the divi-
uend by the assignee WAS an involuntary
payment on the part of the defendants
and did not renew the obligation, thus
affirming the judgment of the County
Court. Lucia, for plaintiff, q. W. Wales
and Burnap for defendants.
In the case OF Oren Hoyts administrator
there was involved the construction of a
sentence in the deed rs TO whether the
consideration was the payment of an
annuity of $50, in parton whether.the con-
sideratiOn, so far as the 500 was CON
cerned, had been paid. The sentence was,
in consideration of our support during
our natural lives and $50 annually paid to
our full satisfaction" The pro forma
Judgment of the County Court for the
plaintiff was affirmed. f. X. Hard for
plaintiff H. 5. Foote and f. f. Wood
bridge for defendant.
The question in Bertha NJ. Clark ct al
VS., l.. p. Clark's administrator, and Ella
f. Clark VS.. same, was an appeal from
commissioners report on claim by the
plaintiffs, daughters of deceased, against
him for the use and occupation OF land
which belonged to them and which they
had occupied together, rent being paid or
claimed in the life time of the deceased
and the referee was unable to prove from
the testimony that any was expected to be
paid or claimed. The latter case involved
the further question OF whether one ten
ant in common can bring an action of AS
sumpsit against the other. l.. f. Knapp,
f. +. Woodbridge for plaintiff Hard and
Grandey for defendants.
The last case, h. g. Goodale and wife vs.
Oliver Frost's administrator, involved the
question as to whether husband and wife
can join in an action OF book account, the
form of action in this case. Court WAS ad-
journed Wednesday noon sine die.