Volume 1 — N. Chipman's Vermont Reports

Ejectment for lands in Tunbridge, on the second division of the original right of-. offered in evidence a vote of the proprietors, reciting a neglect of their committee to make return of the second division, and directing a completion. that the vote was passed since the commencement of this action. moved that he might be allowed to prove, by witnesses, the division, draught, and acceptance. for the defendant, objected.

<p>Particeps was not admitted to testify.</p> <p>Reputation of a marriage not allowed.</p>

<p>irdictmentibr</p> <p>t?efei^i8Se SmsmíílesaUy</p> <p>That he was ^venv^'vooe</p> <p>t°o have ^been iQt-</p> <p>charge to the Jury‘</p> <p>The 31st section oi‘ the Constitution does not extend to the election of town officers.</p> <p>The above section to be laid out of the present case.</p>

<p>if plaintiff, in mandthewhofé coyerfortfpart.</p> <p>^ p"£fi¡3t etVa£ses</p>

<p>substance of</p> <p>Three aefena-</p> <p>Fourth aefenaaut demurs seperately.</p> <p>theC°th°ee ae-</p> <p>piaiutiff’ Counseh</p> <p>worfl?y“rét ait' lEris. dV der.</p> <p>Bui dismissed as to the three defendants, with costs agst. tire plaintiffs.</p> <p>fourth defendants counsel.</p> <p>Plaintiffs’</p> <p>Bui dismissed de ten dan t^'ííut without costs.</p>

<p>The declaration consisted of two' counts, 1st, on an 7 order accepted ; 2d, for money had and received.</p> <p>It appeared in evidence, that at-, on --, the plaintiff and defendant, and one, Sever, were in company. The plaintiff was endeavoring to procure payment on a small note, which he held against Sever. The defendant said, “ Get an order on me, and I will pay it.” Sever drew an order on G., the defendant, for the amount of the note, and H., the plaintiff, gave up the note. II. then turned to G. and said, “ Here will you pay it ?” G. replied, “ Give me the order.” Took it, and wrote on it that he would pay it when he, G., should collect so much of one Taylor, against whom he had a demand in favor of Sever. II. said it was not the agreement. G. said, “ It will not hurt you.”</p> <p>For G. it was insisted that he was bound by the written acceptance only; and as he had collected nothing of Taylor, he was not bound to pay.</p>

This was an action removed into this Court by certiorari. Campbell, the plaintiff below, brought an action before Mr. Justice Burt, against Clark, on a recognizance for the sum of ten pounds, conditioned to prosecute a certiorari, formerly taken out by Clark against Campbell, and not prosecuted.

<p>piaintifi’s counsel.</p> <p>Defendant’s</p> <p>Court,ionoftl10</p> <p>in ejectment a action',e'must, by possibility* leasesubsistinfi</p> <p>The lessor is the real plaintiff.</p> <p>He must set forth a lease which might be good, etc.</p> <p>Plaintiff x s nominal; all tbe right and benefit belongs to the lessor.</p>

<p>to support an ““^ranty there mUSev^ofaon,°or banca taxa-</p>

<p>In ejectment, the operation oí the lease is not confessed.</p> <p>Plaintiff cannot demand on a lease, and recover in fee.</p>

Ejectment for lands in Addison. The defendant’s counsel conceded the title to be in the lessor of the plaintiff, unless the defendant had a good title- The defendant claimed under a deed from P., collector of a proprietor’s tax in Addison. The tax was regularly voted.

Indebitatus assumpsit for ¿645 13s. 3d., money had and received, etc. , Plea, non-assumpsit. The substance of the evidence to the Jury was, that on the — day of-, 1787, N. Smith had an execution against R. Wier, in the hands of an officer. The defendant, as agent for Smith, proposed to Wier, that the execution should rest, without. expressly saying for how long ; and that Wier should see Smith, for a settlement, on a certain day, which was agreed between them.