Court Opinion

ID: 9753090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:57:14.330829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:29.589752
License: Public Domain

Holden, C.J.,
dissenting. The trial court struck down the libellee’s motion to depose and his motion for a continuance with a single ruling. The libellee sought to present his own deposition as an alternative to his appearance in person at the trial. By proceeding to trial forthwith, on the denial of the application to take his out-of-state deposition, the libellee had no opportunity to travel from Puerto Rico to testify in person concerning the disposition of his property in Vermont. Thus both avenues of proof were closed simultaneously. The effect of the ruling has prevented the libellee from making his defense by deposition, or otherwise, at the trial. As I see it, this ruling exceeded the limits of sound judicial discretion and should require a reversal. Land Finance Corporation v. St. Johnsbury Wiring Company, 100 Vt. 328, 333, 137 A. 324 (1927).
Procedural rules should not be applied in such a fashion as to trench upon a litigant’s opportunity to present his case where the attending hardship on his opponent can be cured *533by the imposition of reasonable terms. Harrington v. Kingsbury, 2 Tyler 426, 428 (Vt. 1803). See also Hyam v. American Export Lines, 213 F.2d 221, 223 (2d Cir. 1954). The failure of the trial court to exercise its discretion in this regard constituted error.
The consequence has been a decree of substantial property interests that is founded on the libellant’s evidence alone. And we are called upon to review that result in the narrow light of a one-sided record.