« EelmineJätka »
Clark, Brown v.
690 | Frizzle v. Dearth et als., 787 Buchanan & Co. v. 799 Frost v. Philbrook et als., 736
Commercial Bank v. 325 66 Griswold v.
667 Gallup, Woodstock v. 587 6 v. Tabor,
Giddings v. Hadaway,
342 “ v. Vt. & Canada R. Co. 103 Gilman v. Andrus,
241 Clement v. Canfield, 302 Gleason v. Briggs,
135 Coburn et ux., Abbott, Admr. v. 663 Gould, Howard v.
523 Colburn, Esdon v. 631 | Gray v. Stevens et al.,
1 Colby v. Colby,
10 Green, Hodges et ux. v. 358 Comings, State v. 508 • v. Merriam,
801 Commercial Bank v. Clark, 325 Gregory v. Thrall,
305 “ “ v. Strong, 316 Griswold v. Clark,
667 Conner v. Carpenter,
237 " Sheldon's Admr. v. 376 Cooper, Perkins v. 729 Grover, Barney v.
391 Coverly & Co. v. Braynard & Hadaway, Giddings v.
738 | Hall et al. v. Bingham et al., 85 Craftsbury v. Hill et al.
" Crary's Admr. v.
364 Cram v. Watson,
Estate of, Cushman v. 656 Cramton, Bank of Rutland v. 330 6 - Noyes v. 645 Crandall, Blood v. 396 os v. Nasmith,
791 Crary's Admr. v. Hall, 364 6 v. Vt. & Mass. R. Co., 401 Cushman v. Hall's Est., 656 “ v. Wadsworth,
410 Harlow, Woodward v.
338 Danforth et als., State ex rel. v. Harrington, Austin v.
130 Hunton et als.,
594 | Hart's Trustees, Bishop et als. v. 71 Danforth v. Streeter, 490 Hassams v. Dompier,
32 Danville, Lyndon v.
809 | Hastings et als. v. Hopkinson Davey, Lawrence v. 264 I et al.,
108 Davis et al. v. Bradley & Co. 118 | Hatch v. Vt. C. R. Company, 142 Dearth et als. Frizzle v. 787 Hemenway v. Smith,
701 Dickinson v. King, 378 Herrick, Hobart v.
627 Dodge's Estate, Sherman,
Hill et al., Craftsbury v. 763 Admr. v.
« v. Wentworth,
428 Dompier, Hassams, v. 32 Hindes, Moss v.
279 Doolittle et als. v. Holton,
Hitchcock, Brown v.
452 Downer, Bowman v.
532 " Richardson v. 757 “ v. Flint, 527 Hobart v. Herrick,
627 66 v. Marsh's Tr. & Clmt. 558
Est. of, Lampson v. 697 « S. Royalton Bank v. 635 Hodges et ux. v. Green, 358
Holmes' heirs v. Holmes'admr. 765 Eastman, Brock v.
658 Holton, Doolittle et als. v. 819 Edgerton, Birge et al. v. 291 " v. Whitney,
448 Englesby, Tr., Merrill et als. v. 150 Hopkinson et al., Hastings et Esdon v. Colburn, 631 als. v.
108 Horton, Sartwell v.
370 Fairbank's Tr., Carr, v. 806 Howard v. Gould,
523 Fisher, State v. 711 Howe v. Adams,
541 Fletcher v. Phelps, 257 Huggins v. Stone,
617 Flint, Downer v.
527 | Hunton et als., State ex rel. “ Staples v.
Danforth et als. v. 594 66 v. Whitney,
680 6 v. Whitton,
Jackson v. Walton, Tr., 43 Foster, Prentiss v.
742 | Johnson v. Kingbury et al., French, Braley v. 546 L " State v.
512 Carpenter v. 796 | Joy v. Walker,
Keeler et al., Patch et ux. v. 322 | O'Conner, Woodrow v. 776 Kelley & Tr., Thayer et al. v. 19 Olcott, Page v.
405 Kenyon, Wrisleys v. Kilborne, Thompson v. 750 Page v. Olcott,
465 Kimball v. School District,
Paige v. Morgan,
565 King, Dickinson v.
378 | Paine's Estate, Pierce v. 34 Kingsbury et al., Johrson v. 486 o “ Tremont Bank v. 24
Parsons, Snow v.
459 Lampson v. IIobart's Est., 697 Patch et ux. v. Keeler et al. 332 Laphams & Tr., Barnes v. 307 Patchin v. Stroud,
394 Larabee's Exr. v. Larabee, 274 | Paul v. School District, 575 Lawrence v. Davey,
264 | Pawlet v. R. & W.R. Company, 297 Leavenworth's Est., Mich. St. Peasley's est., Stone v. 716 Bank v.
209 | Pecks, Michigan St. Bank v. 200 Leland v. Sprague,
127 Lincoln, Thrall v. 356 Perkins v. Cooper,
729 Londonderry v. Andover, 416 Phelps, Fletcher v.
257 Ludlow W. Mill, Carlton et Philbrook et al., Frost v. 736 al. v.
501 Pierce v. Paine's Estate, Lyman v. Norwich University, 560 Pittsford, Taft v.
286 Lyndon v. Danville, 809 Pollard, Sleeper v.
709 Pope, admr. v. Stacy,
96 Manly et al. v. Slason. 346 | Powers, Shedd v.
652 Marsh's Tr. & Clint., Downer v. 558 6 est. Simonds ct als. v. 354 Marshall v. Town, 14 | Pratt v. Battles,
685 Martin & Tr., Van Bugkirk v. 726 Prentiss v. Foster,
742 McDaniels v. Robinson, 387 Propagation Society v. Sharon McKOrmsby, Ascutney Bank
603 et als. V.
721 “ v Morris,
711 | Railroad Co., R. & B. et als., Merriam, Green v.
B. Falls Bank v. Merrill et als. v. Englesby, Tr., 150 “ R. & W., Pawlet v.
16 Admr. of, v. True, 676 “ Vt. & Canada, Clark y. Michigan State Bank v. Leav “ Vt. C. v. Burlington 193 enworth's Est., 209 66 “ Hatch v.
142 65 66 Pecks, 200 66 Norris v.
99 Middlebury, Salisbury v. 282 16 " State y,
583 Morgan, Page v.
565 Vt. & Mass. Hall v. 401 et als. v. Tarbell, 498 Richardson v. Hitchcock 757 Morrill's Est., True et als. v. 672 | Robinson, McDaniels v. 387 Morris, McKOrmsby v. 711 Royce v. Allen,
234 Morse, Aldrich v.
642 Rutland, Bank of v. Cramton 330 " et al. v. Stoddard et al., 445 | Rutland & Bur. R. Co. et als., 6 v. Weymouth,
B. Falls Bank v.
279 Rutland & Wash. R. Co., Paw-
297 Nasmith, Hall v.
791 Nichols et al. v. Nichols et al., 228 Salisbury v. Middlebury, 282 Noyes & Co. v. 159 Sartwell v. Horton,
370 Norris v. Vt. C. R. Company, 99 Sawyer, Sawyers' heirs v. 245 Norwich University, Lyman v. 560 6 v. Sawyers' heirs 249 Noyes v. Hall's Estate, 645
et al v. Worthington 733 * & Co. v. Nichols, 159 ) School District, Kimball v. 66 v. Smith et al.,
59 " " Paul v. 575 Nutt, State v.
Sharon et als., Propagation
Hon. ISAAC F. REDFIELD, CHIEF JUDGE.
JOSEPH G. GRAY v. S. G STEVENS AND A. Redway.
Landlord and tenant.
Gray v. Stevens et al.
The purchaser, though he acts innocently, and in ignorance of the lessor's rights, will be equally liable with the lessee. The lessee stands in no such relation that he can convey any greater right to the property than he himself possesses.
The rule of damages in such case is the value of the property removed.
Trespass for taking a quantity of hay and straw. Plea, the general issue ; trial by jury, March Term, 1855,-POLAND, J., presiding.
The plaintiff's evidence tended to prove that in April, 1852, he leased his farm to the defendant Stevens until the first day of April, 1853, for which Stevens was to pay $140, rent. The plaintiff was to put on and did put on to said farm six cows; and all the hay and straw raised on the farm was to be foddered out thereon, and was all to be and remain the property of the plaintiff until the end of the term, and until all the conditions of the contract were performed by Stevens. Stevens was to put on cattle enough, with those of the plaintiff, to consume all the fodder as near as they could calculate, and if there was any surplus left, of one and a half or two tons, the plaintiff was to have it, provided he would pay as much as anybody else. Stevens entered into possession under this lease. In November the rent for the farm was fully paid; and about the 25th of December, Stevens then being on the farm, and the plaintiff's six cows there also, all the hay and straw on the farm was attached, as Stevens' property. Stevens continued to feed out the hay to the stock till about the 16th of February, when all of said hay and straw was sold at public auction by a legal officer, as the property of Stevens, except the hay and straw now in controversy, which was reserved by the officer, as the debtor's exemption under the statute. The plaintiff's evidence also tended to prove that Stevens, soon after the auction sale, sold all the hay and straw, so reserved to him, to the defendant Redway, and received his pay therefor; and that about a week after the sale said hay and straw was removed by Redway, and that he was assisted by Stevens in making the removal ; and that Redway knew of the plaintiff's interest in the hay at the time of making his purchase.
The evidence on the part of the defendants, tended to show that by the terms of the letting, it was agreed between them that all the hay and fodder raised by Stevens on the farm should be fed