Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1895-09-27
wINDHAM COUNTY COURT.

The case Of the Vermont Farm Machine com.
pany VS.. Francis Batcheder & Co., which had
been on trial since the morning of the second
day of the term was submitted to the Jury at 1C
A. NJ. Tuesday of this week. In the afternoon the
jury returned a verdict for the defendant
Bridget Kdrdndugh Us. Termont Savings Bank
This was an action to recover about S140O, due
on certain deposit book issued by the defend.
ant Jan. 6, 1882. The plaintiffs evidence tended
to show that for many years she had been a ser.
want in the family of Mrs. Bradley in Bratteboro
That prior to Jan. 6, 1882 she hau made deposit It's
IN her own name in the defendant bank, so that
at that time she had on deposit there moneys ex.
ceeding 5000. That under the law and rules of
the bank II would not pay interest to any one de.
posttor on amounts exceeding $1,000 That Jan.
g. 1882, desiring to make further deposits, she de
posted $500 in the name of her niece, Mary KAY
anaugh; that the book was issued and delivered
to her in the name of the said Mary Kavauaugh;
that she, from time to time, up to aud including
the year 1886 made further deposits which were
entered in said deposit book. That she had al
ways retained said book in her possession, and
that the money deposited was ali her own; that
plaintiff had demanded payment to her of the
amount due said book, which defendant had
declined to pay. The court held that as the book
was issued in the name of Mary Kavanaugh the
promise on the part of the bank was to pay to
Mary and not to the plaintiff Bridget; hence that
the plaintiff could not recover in this action, and
decided verdict for the defendant, to which
plaintiff excepted
Haskins A Stoddard for the plaintiff Water
man, Martin & Hit for the defendant.
L. c. POtCerS rs. NeW England Fire Insurance
compdHy-This was an ,tIon to recover for loss
of dwelling house and household goods destroyed
in a fire which occurred IN Newfane IN May, 1894,
and upon which defendant company had issued a
policy of insurance.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff tend
ed to show that he was the owner of the proper
ty in question; that ths defendant company is
sued policy of insurance to him Aug. -, 1898 q,
upon the dwelling house for $500, and the house
hold goods for $500 That the house and con-
tents were destroyed by fire May ~, 1884, and
that the property destroyed was worth much
larger sum of money than the amount Of the in
surance. The policy provided that in case of loss
by fire notice should forthwith be given TO the
defendant, and that proofs of the loss signed
and sworn to by the assured, should be made and
furnished the company within 30 days from date
of fire. 1t also appeared on examination OF
plaintiff that proofs of loss were not made ana
sent to the company until some 90 days after the
loss occurred. 1t was claimed by the plaintiff
and his evidence tended to show that the reason
why proofs we're not furnished as provided In the
conditions of the policy was that the defendant
company by its agents, wrote letters, IN when
they promised that the loss should be adjusted
by them within 30 days that the matter was suf
fered to go along tins way until after the 80 days
had expired, and then the defendant declined TO
do any thing further about it. The defendant
after plaintiff had rested his case, moved that
the court direct a verdict for the company on &C
caunt of plaintiffs noncompliance with the con-
ditons of the contract or policy of insurance;
that the adiuster, Mr.. Bagley, had no authority
to waive any of the conditions of the policy; nor
had lany other representative of the company,
except the president and secretary, any power TO
waive any of its conditions, and that in case OF
valves by the president and secretary, such
valves shall be endorsed in writing upon the pol
Icy.
The court decided to direct a verdict as re-
quested by the defendant, and submitted the
question to the jury alter the opening argument
Tor the plaintiff, the defendants counsel declin-
Sill. NF'''
Fits, Waterman, Martin & Hit for plaintiff.
Butler for the defendant.
Mary Ritter shea rs. Stanley / Smitb-ThiS
was an action of general aSsumpst. The plain
tiff claimed and her evidence tended to show,
that in October 1894 she delivered into the hands
of defendant ten shares of stock in the American
Tube company to sell for her: that within "A
month from that time defendant sold it for IL
cents on the dollar of its par value, but had
neglected and refused to pay to her the proceeds
realized 10y him thereon. The defendant eVl-
dence tended to show the plaintiff held said stock
at cost to her of oU cents ON the dollar OF IT'S par
value; that it had steadily dropped in value to 80
cents, and that plaintiff was anxious that defend
take it and sell it for her: that he declined to
| do so, but upon her importantly ana agreement
| that If he would do so he might have the use OF
the proceeds for two years lac received 1t and exc.
| cuted to her his receipt emOodylng the terms OF
the contract; that is, he to SILL at its market
| value, have the use of the money tor two years,
| and at the end of that time to pay her what he
| allied thereon from the sale, and such further
sum as he could afford to allow her for the use OF
the money, not exceeding its par value; that SOON
after the sale she wrote him requesting him to
deposit the proceeds TO her credit IN the Vermont
| National bank He replied by letter, calling heI
attention to the contract and declining to make
| the deposit, to which she answered thanking him
| for doing well for her, and consenting that tht
| money remain with him according TO the orlgina
| agreement. Soon after other correspondence
passed between them, she requesting payment OF
| the money, and defendant declining to make the
| payment, but insisting on the matter standing oI
| the agreement as originally made
Verdict for plaintiff to recover Si2'.
| Waterman, Martin 4 Hit for the plaintitt
| Haskins & Stoddard and Cudworth for the de