Haskell's Admr. v. Holt
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on the report of a special master and defendant Daniels’ exceptions thereto, at the September Term, 1902, Washington County, Watson, Chancellor. Decree for the petitioner. Defendant Daniels appealed. The former decree is conclusive. If Haskell lost his day in Court it was through his own fault, and equity will not relieve him.
Read the full summary
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on the report of a special master and defendant Daniels’ exceptions thereto, at the September Term, 1902, Washington County, Watson, Chancellor. Decree for the petitioner. Defendant Daniels appealed. The former decree is conclusive. If Haskell lost his day in Court it was through his own fault, and equity will not relieve him. Hyde v. Hyde, 50 Vt. 301; Durkee v. Durkee, 59 Vt. yo\ Kopper v. Dyer, 59' Vt. 477. A judgment is conclusive not only as to all questions decided, but as to all questions that might have been decided. Stratton v. Lyons, 53 Vt. 130, 641; Paine…
1Opinion of the CourtStart, J.
The petition is for the foreclosure of a mortgage, executed by defendant Holt and his wife to the petitioner’s intestate, John Q. Haskell. Defendant Daniels, p.s holder of a subsequent mortgage upon the same premises, brought a petition to foreclose his mortgage, returnable at the September Term, 1897, of the Court of Chancery in and for the County of Washington, making Holt and Haskell defendants thereto, charging, among other things not material upon the issue in this cause, that Haskell claimed some right or interest in the premises thereby sought to be foreclosed, by virtue of a mort*415gage…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carpenter v. MillardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865
- Buzzell v. StillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
- In re Buckman's WillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Shaw v. ChambeblinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873
- Kinsley v. ScottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- Roberts v. W. H. Hughes Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1913