Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Vt. 658

Walter v. Belding

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided May 15, 1853

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1853-05-15

This was a petition, in the name of the town agent of East Haven, alledging that the defendant and certain others, had usurped the town offices, and having made a partition of them among themselves,… Held: at which defendant Belding was elected clerk, and others to fill the other offices. Belding sued out a writ of replevin, and obtained the possession of the town books, and other fixtures of the town clerk’s office.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1908

5 state decisions

30185318601870188018901900decided

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 →

Bt the Court, Red field, J.

¶1We think the meeting was not properly adjourned on the 8th of March, consequently Horace L. Walter is the legal town clerk of East Haven, and it is proper the town books should be speedily restored to his custody, for the purpose of enabling him to make legal records affecting the title of lands, as well as for other purposes. The form of the proceeding is not probably such, as would commend itself altogether to an English Attorney General, as an information for a writ in the nature of a quo warranto. But as a mere rule to show cause why some appropriate remedy should not issue, is perhaps well enough. There being apparently two perfect records, farol evidence must of necessity be resorted to, to determine which is the legitimate record.

¶2The writ of mandamus seems to us the proper remedy in the case. It might, with perfect propriety, have been supplicated by the town clerk, Walter, himself. But being done by the town agent, in behalf of the town, is no such fatal irregularity as to defeat the proceeding.

¶3The hearing being had upon the rule to show cause, as is common, the writ of mandamus will issue in the peremptory form, in the first instance, and as this settles the rights of all concerned, the case is only retained to know whether it shall become needful to take any further steps to enforce the writ.

¶4Peremptory writ of mandamus to issue.

/24/vt/658 · .json · Public domain