The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1912-11-06
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OPINIONS ORDERED
At Opening Of Vermont Supreme Court
Yesterday, Thompson-Sta Co. VS..
Ellis Granite Co.

". II. Powers against the Rutland rail
road was argued, superior court Judges
Miles and Stanton sitting in place Q
Chief Judge Rowel and Judge c. NJ
Powers who We're disqualified. Mr.
Powers is trying to recover balance al
legged to be due on his salary account
MS general counsel from 1908 to 1908.
The case was first docketed in Lam
ollie county in 1909 and in 1910 YER
diet was rendered for sol, 40. The
case went to supreme court and at the
the county court for the plaintiff was
reversed and judgment ordered for the
defendant.
The case is being reargued on the
ground that Judge Rowell while sit
ting on the case was holder of stock
in the New York Central railroad,
which is alleged to have controlled the
Rutland road at that time.
In the Washington county case of
Thompson Starrett company VS.. f. b..
Ellis Granite company, Judge Powers
opinion affirmed the decree and remanded
the cause that new time of redemp-
tion may be fixed Judge Hazelton con
curing. This case was docketed in
1909 and centers about foreclosure of
certain mortgage involving 100000.
The question was whether the fore
closure was premature under certain
agreements made between the COM
panies whereby the mortgage should
not be foreclosed until the granite
contracts between the companies be
completed. There was question over
six monolthic statutes for the union
station at Washington, ID. C., at
price of $4,000. Ii is alleged these
had not been delivered and that the
delay was unwarrantable
and that defendant had received full
contract price
The master found the contract for
the statutes was not completed
through no fault of the defendant and
also found no fraud had been practiee,l
on the defendant in the selection OF
trustee. Both parties excepted and the
case was recommitted to the master
for the petitioner and the defendant APP
pealed.
The petitioners agreement not to fore
close depended, upon implication, upon
the faithful performance of the defend
mt in the provisions OF the remainder
If the agreement between the parties
md the defendant repudiated certain
sections of that agreement. Therefore,
he opinion held the foreclosure in this I
we'll known case was not premature.
In the Orange county case of Dan ID. |
lowe, guardian. VS.. Margaret A. Ma
on in which the defendant questioned /
he validity of the orators appoint 4
nent as guardian. Judge Munson read
n opinion affirming the decree and re-
handing cause Want of jurisdiction
n respect of residence was alleged.
mother Washington County Opinion.
In the Washington county case of
farion B. Thomworth VS.. A. n. Blan
hard, Judge Rowefs opinion affirmed
and remanded the cause.
he suit grew out of the disposition
[ piece Of land in Washington ID,
:, and the declaration alleged that
{ the time Of such sale there was
ending in supreme court condemnation {
roceedings OF the land in question for I
he purposes of street extensions and |
The defendants demur- {
ar to the declaration was sustained {
nd the declaration adiudged insult
cient. The plaintiff fled new deelara- I
on and the defendants demurrer was I
lstained the second time and declara- 1
on adjudged insufficient. On eXcep-
ons BY the defendant the case went s
the higher court. Q
Judge Munson's opinion in the Cal
lonia county case Of Citizens Savings u
ank and Trust company VS.. Fitch I
lrg Mutual Fire Insurance company i
yersed Judgment and the cause was
manded for reassessment of dam
res. Judge Watson concurred. Judges
UNISON and Hazelton dissented from
e holding that the quadrennial APP 2
aisals were admissible evidence.
The suit was on an insurance policy :
ntaining an so per cent. co-insurance =
ause. Ten other companies had poll i
Is on the burned st. Johnsbury build
e including the Vermont Mutual and
MON Mutual of this city. The low
court verdict was for the plaintiff =
the sum of Sl,52s.76. !
III was claimed that ten jurors were Y
terested in these companies and were u
erefore disqualified. at is generally :
ID" read the opinion, that the q
,ount paid BY one company in set
.ment on judgment in no way af Z,
It's the liabilities of other companies. =
lere is no concurrent liability.
The opinion held that evidence rel y
i've to the rental value OF the build q
7 was admissible in the determining v
the value of the properly. The AZ
tire question was one of valuation y
d the majority of the court held that o.
: listers valuation was admissible =
Entries Made.
The following entries were made: th
Jamolle county, II. H. Powers VS.. in
tland Railroad. with court; Chit SC
lden county. In real estate of Har. re
| G. Peck. motion to continue; State in
Joseph Ploof assault with intent th
kiln hearing; state vs.. Sidney Sny an
adultery hearing; State vs.. Hat
Cushing adultery hearing pi
amoille. f. +. Foss vs.. +. p. Oar to
2. settled and discontinued; Addison. pr
r. Brown vs.. c. l.. Hammond, hear
at Rutland Arthur J. Blackner vs.
aries f. McCabe and William Ris r
e itroverl hearing at Rutland; Ex- Is
county. Mrs. Eugene Stone vs.. Ed r
Green. settled and discontinued. II
Washington county. in re estate Of Is
epha Bidgood. John Bidgood, apt. b
peal from probatel hearing; Wash g
ton county. Rowland Brothers and e
.e vs.. Barre Savings Bank and Trust =
many hearing = Iurp We NJ II ~