Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Vt. 327

Walker v. Sargeant

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 15, 1839

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1839-02-15

This was an action of debt on a recognizancé. The defendant pleaded nul tiel record, and also a declaration in offset, as folio tvs: And for further plea in this behalf, ip pursuance of the statute in such cases made and provided, the defendant, by way of offset to the plaintiff’s claim, declares against the said Horatio in a plea of the case ; for that whereas the said Horatio, at Manchester aforesaid, on the 25th day of May, 1836, by his note under his hand of that date,…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1839-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1912

5 state decisions

20183918401850186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Collamer, J.

¶1The plaintiff has filed a motion in arrest, containing matter, which, as he says, took place on trial. Such matter cannot be taken advantage of in this manner. A motion in arrest can be sustained only for matter apparent of record, and such things as take place on trial must be placed on record by a bill of exceptions, allowed by the court, before notice can be taken thereof for reversing a judgment; — for they would never be proper for a motion in arrest. But among the matters urged in arrest of the general judgment, found for the defendant on his pleas in offset is, that they are insufficient. The first objection is, that the declaration in offset does not contain the usual introductory averment that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant at the commencement of the action. On a motion in arrest, the declaration, and every thing which must have been proved in sustaining what the declaration avers, is taken to have been shown. Now some of the counts here are on notes, alleged to be given and due before this action. This allegation having been found true supplies the want of any such direct averment. It is insisted that the counts on note are insufficient. That such declaration on note is sufficient was decided in Binney & Broadhead v. Plumley, 5 Vt. R. 500. The fourth count in the declaration in offset is clearly, bad, alleging no suffi*330cient consideration for the promise, and the judgment being general on the whole declaration, it must be arrested. These two points were decided in Harding v. Cragie. 8 Vt. R. 501. It appears that the defendant also pleaded mil tiel record.— The ease does not show how this was found, nor for what claim the balance was found for the defendant, and therefore there must be a new trial.

¶2Judgment arrested, and new trial granted.

/11/vt/327 · .json · Public domain