« 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 Griswold v. 667 | Gallup, Woodstock v.
587 v. Tabor,
222 Giddings v. Ilada way, 312 v. Vt. & Canada R. Co. 103 Gilman v. Andrus,
241 Clement v. Canfield,
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, Ilodges et ux. v. 358 Comings, State v.
801 Commercial Bank v. Clark, 325 Gregory v. Thrall,
305 v. Strong, 316 Griswold v. Clark,
667 Conner v. Carpenter,
Sheldon's Admr. v. 376 Cooper, Perkins v. 729 Grover, Barney v.
391 Coverly & Co. v. Braynard & Hadaway, Giddings v. 342 Tr.,
738 Hall et al. v. Bingham et al., 85 Craftsbury v. Hill et al.
364 Cram v. Watson,
Estate of, Cushman v. 656 Cramton, Bank of Rutland v. 330
Noyes v. 645 Crandall, Blood v. 396 v. Nasmith,
791 Crary's Admr. v. Hall, 364 v. Vt. & Mass. R. Co., 401 Cushman v. Hall's Est., 656 v. Wadsworth,
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,
32 Danville, Lyndon v.
809 Hastings et als. v. Ilopkinson Davey, Lawrence v. 264
108 Davis et al. v. Bradley & Co. 118 Hateh 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. 26 v. Wentworth,
428 Dompier, Hassams, v. 32 Hindes, Moss v.
279 Doolittle et als. v. Holton, 819 Hitchcock, Brown v.
452 Downer, Bowman v.
Richardson v. 757 v. Flint, 527 Hobart v. Herrick,
627 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
448 Englesby, Tr., Merrill et als. v. 150 Hopkinson et al., Hastings et Esdon v. Colburn, 631
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. 794 Danforth et als. v.
594 v. Whitney,
680 v. Whitton,
557 Jackson v. Walton, Tr., 43 Foster, Prentiss v.
742 Johnson v. Kingbury et al., 486 French, Braley 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.
465 Kenyon, Wrisleys v.
5 Kilborne, Thompson v. 750 Page v. Olcott,
465 Kimball v. School District, 8 Paige v. Morgan,
565 King, Dickinson v.
378 Paine's Estate, Pierce v. 34 Kingsbury et al., Johnson v. 486
Tremont Bank v. 24 Parsons, Snow v.
459 Lampson v. Hobart'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
209 Pecks, Michigan St. Bank v. 200 Leland v. Sprague,
127 Lincoln, Thrall v.
729 Londonderry v. Andover, 416 Phelps, Fletcher v.
257 Ludlow W. Mill, Carlton et Philbrook et al., Frost v. 736
504 Pierce v. Paine's Estate, 34 Lyman v. Norwich University, 560 Pittsford, Taft v.
286 Lyndon v. Danville,
709 Pope, admr. v. Stacy,
96 Manly et al. v. Slason, 346 Powers, Shedd v.
652 Marsh's Tr. & Clmt., Downer v. 558 est. Simonds ct als. v. 354 Marshall v. Town, 14 Pratt v. Battles,
685 Martin & Tr., Van Buckirk 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.
470 Merrill et als. v. Englesby, Tr., 150 6 R. & W., Pawlet v.
297 Admr. of, v. True, 676 “ Vt. & Canada, Clark y. 103 Michigan State Bank v. Leav
“ Vt. C. v. Burlington
193 enworth's Est., 209
+6 Hatch v.
142 Pecks, 200 " Norris v.
99 Middlebury, Salisbury v. 282
583 Morgan, Page v.
565 16 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., v. Weymouth, 824 B. Falls Bank v.
470 Moss v. Hindes, 279 Rutland & Wash. R. Co., Paw
297 Nasrnith, 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
Sawyers' heirs 249 Noyes v. Hall's Estate, 645
et al v. Worthington 733 & Co. v. Nichols, 159 School District, Kimball v. 8 v. Smith et al.,
575 Nutt, State v.
598 Sharon et als., Propagation
16 State v.
Shaw, Baxter v.
356 Shedd v. Powers,
652 Town, Marshall v. Sheldon's admr. v. Griswold 376
771 Sherman v. Blodgett,
149 Tremont Bank v. Paine's Esadmr. v. Dodge's Estate, 26 tate,
24 Shepherd v. Briggs,
True, Merrills' admr. v. 676 Simonds et als. v. Powers Es
et als. v. Morrills' estate, 672 tate 354 Tyler, Carr v.
783 Slason, Manly et al. v, Sleeper v. Pollard,
709 Van Buskirk v. Martin & Tr. 726 Smith, Hemenway v.
Vt. & Canada R. Company,
103 Snow v. Parsons,
459 Vt. Central R. Company v. Society, Propagation, v. Shar
193 on et als.
142 South Royalton Bank v. Dow
99 ner et al,
583 Sprague, Leland v.
Vt. & Mass. R. Company,
401 Staples v. Flint,
794 State v. Comings, 508 | Wadsworth, Hall v.
410 v. Fisher,
714 Wait v. Wait's Executor, 350 ex rel. Danforth et als. v. Walker v. Barrington, 781 Hunton et als. 594 Joy v.
442 V. Johnson 512 Walace v. Bowers,
638 v. Nutt,
598 Walton, Tr., Jackson v. 43 v. Vt. Cent. R. Company 583 Warners, Bailey v.
87 Steele v. Town, * 771 Watson, Cram v.
22 Stephens v. Thompson et al. 77 Webb v. Burlington,
188 Stevens et al., Gray v. 1 Wentworth, Hill v.
428 Stoddard et al., Morse et al v. 445 Weymouth, Morse v.
824 Stone v. Huggins, 617 Wheelock, Chester v.
554 v. Peasleys' est. 716 Whipple et al. v. Briggs, Streeter, Danforth, v. 490 White et al. v Bascom et al. 268 Strong, Commercial Bank v. 316 Whitney v. Flint,
680 Stroud, Patchin v.
448 Whitton, Flint v.
557 Tabor, Clark v. 222 Wilson, Chatfield v.
49 Taft v. Pittsford,
286 Wires & Peck, Ætna Ins. Tarbel, Morgan et als. v. 498
93 Taylor, Briggs v.
180 Woodrow v. O'Conner, 676 Thayer et al v. Kelley & Tr. 19 Woodstock v. Gallup, 587 Thompson v. Kilborne, 750 Woodward v. Harlow, 338
et al., Stephens v. 77 Worthington, Sawyer v. 733 Thorpe v. Pecks,
127 Wirsleys v. Kenyon, Thrall'et als., Bowen v. 382 Wyethe, Barnes v.
41 Gregory v.
Hon. MILO L. BENNETT; } ASSISTANT JUDGES.
JOSEPH G. GRAY V. S. G STEVENS AND A. REDWAY.
Landlord and tenant. Trespass. Damages.
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