Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1899-02-09
SUPREME COURT AGAIN
Case of Inspector Mann Against the Brad
ford Savings Bank aud Trust Com
pany Other Cases.

MOntpeller, req. t-l pom the reSump-
tion of the session of Supreme Court in
this city to-day, cases from Orange county
We're taken up for hearing. The first was
that of Hosea Mann, State inspector Of
finance, VS.. the Bradford Savings bank
and Trust company, James b. Hale, re-
ociver. C. C. Fits appeared for the plain
tiff and w. b. C. Stickney for the defend
ant.
The bank being insolvent James r. Hale
was appointed receiver and Hon. James NJ.
Tyler as chancellor limited the time for
creditors of the defendant to present and
provo their claims against it to June l..
lSgS, and that the number who have ap-
proved their claims under this order is
1900, that 700 of this number claim their
debts thus proved shall be treated as pre-
fcrred claims and the debts are CLASSIFIED
under six heads. 1t has been pro forma
adjudged. ordered and decreed by the
chancellor, that the creditors in the class
cs specified in the agreed statement of
facts shall upon the dissolution of the de-
fendant corporation he entitled to a pref
erence over other creditors. The receiver
has appealed to the Supreme Court in
order that the case may be passed upon
before the expense of a trial upon the
question of a dissolution of the defendant
corporation is incurred. As Judge Watson
was the original attorney for the defense
he was absent from the bench during the
hearing of the case.
The next case was that of Benjamin
Dow vs.. c. f. Taylor. Montpelier and
Wells River railroad trustee appellant and
r. L. Henderson, claimant. Smith & Sloan
appearing for the plaintiff and j. 7. Lam
son for the defendant. In this case, it
appears that Tayor owed Dow and that
he made an assignment of his wages to
the railroad company in order to secure
Henderson for what was due Henderson
Dow n re
Dow objects. claiming that they are fraud-
ulent. At the June tenn, 1SS. OF Orange
County Court the trustees were adtudged
liable in the sum of 1892 and judgment
for the plaintif to recover said sum and
costs accruing subsequent to appeal of the
trustees. The case comes to this court on
exceptions taken by the defendants and
the question is a to who owns the funds
in the hands OF the trustee, Dow or Hen
derson.
Montpelier, Feb. S.-Before the Washing
ton county cases were taken up in Su-
preme Court to-day two small cases from
$hittendcn county were heard. The first,
Thomas w. Thorpe. executor. VS. l.. f..
Wilbur, executor, forms the tag end of a
series already heard, and the plaintiff was
represented by Attorney Monahan and the
defendant by himself In this case the
plaintiff had sued and attached home
stead which the defendant claims was ex-
empt under the acts of exemption and the
question before this court is whether or
not homestead which has been set off on
piece of land upon which there Is
mortgage, cannot be transferred to anoth-
er piece of land upon which there is no
mortgage in order that the mortgagor
may get relief.
The second case was that of Kate l..
Page VS.. (. Ii. and Emily Warner, apt.
Brown and Macomber appea ring for the
n oil fnr hf.I IafA Low,
This is an action of debt on judgment
against the defendants at the March term
1896 of County Court for s231.6O damages
with costs.
The first case from Washington county
taken up was that of Herbert r. Sias vs..
the Consolidated Lighting company J. ".
Gordon and X. A. Hoar appearing for the
plaintiff and Senter and Goddard and II.
y. Huse for the defendant. 1t appeArs
from the evidence of the plaintiff tina. in
September, 1S5. while climbing a pole of
the defendants to fix "A cross-arm upon
another pole opposite. the pole broke and
fell with him to the ground and he was
seriously injured. The plaintiff brought
suit against the defendant for 5000 dam
ages and at the September term, 1907, of
County Court he. received Judgment on
the verdict to recover s32CU. The case
comes TO this court on exceptions taken by
the defendant.
l.. Fuller & Son, Senter and Goddard ap-
peared for the plaintifT and r. II. Gordon
and Lord and Carleton for the defendant.
This is an action in generl assumpsit in
which the plaintiff claimed to recover up
on certain Specifications of "A book account
and upon the case being tried in the Sept
ember term, 1877, of County Court judC.
ment was rendered for the plaintiff to re-
cover $2lOG damages and his costs, to
which judgment the defendants excepted.
1he defendants have also brought a pc
ttion for a new trial In the case basing
their claim for the same upon the ground
that the facts found for the court below
were contrary to the evidence.
In the case Of Grace l. Parker VS.. Taylor
O. Parker and o. II. Smith. trustee, and
p. G. Camp, claimant, J. p. Lamson ap-
peared for the plaintiff and ]. w Gordon
and +, l.. Laird for the defendants. This
case was tried in County Court at the
March term, 1896, and resulted in verdict
for the defendants and was carried to the
January term. 1857, OF Supreme Court on
plaintiffs exceptions where Judgment was
reversed and cause remanded. The case
was again tried In County Court at the
September term. 1891. when verdict for
the plaintiff 10 recover S736N was render
ed TO which the defendants eNceptcd ana
the case is now before this court .lof re-
arplIment