The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1914-01-17
SUPREME COURT
HEARS THREE CASES
Which Were Brought from Orleans Coun-
ty and Then Takes an Adjourn
ment to Next Tuesday.

Supreme court adjourned yesterday
until Tuesday. Arguments were com
Abbie b. Davis and the Orleans county
case of C. G. Baldwin vs.. G. F. Percival
was next taken up. This is an action
of general assumpsit, brought to recover
certain money paid for the use and bene-
fit of the defendant. At the March
term of court, 1912, judgment was rem
dered against the principal defendant for
the sum of SS96.3l. John f. Ruggles
was summoned as trustee and Simpson
Clark entered as claimant. The ques-
ton of the liability of the trustee is
the question to be decided in supreme
court. The claimant, Simpson Clark,
father-in-law of the defendant, after per-
mission by the court in 1912, filed his
declaration claiming the funds now in
the trustees hands. At the March term,
1912, John +. Ruggles, trustee, filed a
motion to discharge the trustee because
no allegation had been filed by the plain
tiff, and because issue had not been
joined on the trustees disclosure, so that
Judgment should pass on the facts al
commissioner appointed by the court to
take the disclosure of the trustee.
Attorney George j. Young, for the
claimant, maintained that the assign
ment from the defendant to the claim
ant was valid, the commissioners report
finding that the defendant was indebted
to the claimant at the time the assign
ment was made in a sum exceeding 49,
500, and that defendant assigned this
claim to the claimant in part pay for
that Indebtedness also that the decree
of the probate court, assigning the dis
tributing share OF said estate, to G. +.
Percval has no effect upon the rights
of the parties in this cause.
Attorneys for the plaintiff asserted
that this letter from Perciyal to Rug.
giles, claimants exhibit one, is not an
assignment, that the commissioner found
that the trustee had no notice or knowl-
edge in any respect of the claimed as
signment, except what is Tecited in ex-
hibits one and two. Also that if the
claimant held valid assignment of funds
in administrators hands, in order to pro-
tect his rights, he should have notified
the probate court of the assignment and
had the fund decreed him.
The Orleans county case of Merlo o.
Leavans, appellant, vs.. the American Ex-
press company came to supreme court
on exceptions. This is an action brought
by the plaintiff to recover damages
caused by delay in the shipping of raw
skins from Newport to New York To
this declaration the defendant pleaded
a special contract and facts bringing the
case within the exemptions of that con-
tract, which facts constitute a full de-
Tense of common law.
After this plea was sustained by this
court plaintiff replied that when the con-
tract was entered into he was an infant
To this the defendant demurred. The
demurrer presents two propositions:
That the plaintiff cannot now plead in
fancy when the contract was made, and
thereby avoid the effect of the contract
and that the replication purports to an
swer the whole plea but in fact answers
only a part and admits the balance.
The part is sufficient to bar the action
at common law.
Attorneys Colby Stoddard and Harry
A. Black for the plaintiff in their brief
claim:
To that plea of special contract, the
only purpose of which is to relieve the
express company from existing and pros
peetive liability we have filed a replica
tion of infancy. We say in effect, that
an infant cannot relieve the American
Express company, and himself assume
the burden, of duties and liabilities that
the common law has placed upon that
Every provision of that con
Ia ha al g 81
PENDANT company; every provision is
waiver of right of the plaintiff and
every provision operates to the prejudice
of the rights of the infant plaintiff. The
replication of infancy therefore is a per-
feet answer to the plea of special CON
tract.