Clough v. Horton
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for use and occupation, brought before a justice of the peace. Plea before the justice averring title in the defendant, and praying that the suit be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal. In the county court the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction in the justice. The plaintiff also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for use and occupation, brought before a justice of the peace. Plea before the justice averring title in the defendant, and praying that the suit be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal. In the county court the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction in the justice. The plaintiff also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The court, at the April term, 1868, Barrett, J., presiding, pro forma overruled the plaintiff’s motion, sustained the defendant’s motion and dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction in the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion, of the court was delivered-by
Prout, J.
This action, which is assumpsit for use and occupation, is apparently within the justic.e’s jurisdiction, as the ad damnum of the process is only ten dollars. But in the justice’s court, the defendant'moved to dismiss the suit, alleging in his -motion, that he (the defendant) was the owner of the premises referred *12to in the declaration; thus raising a question of title, of which it is now insisted the justice had no jurisdiction and the county court no appellate jurisdiction. In Howard et al. v. Ransom, 2 Aik., 252, it is said that the action…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Greeno v. MunsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
- Jakeway v. BarrettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865
- Lord v. BigelowSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
- Powers v. LeachSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Howard & Shattuck v. RansomSupreme Court of Vermont · 1827
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.