Hatch v. S. Robinson & Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
These were actions on the statute; one brought to recover the penalties for selling flour without having been inspected; the other brought to recover the penalty for inspecting flour, without having been duly appointed to that office. Both cases were tried on demurrer; and the County Court, — ■ Pierpoint, J., presiding, — rendered judgment in both cases that the declaration was insufficient, and for the defendants to recover their costs.
Read the full summary
These were actions on the statute; one brought to recover the penalties for selling flour without having been inspected; the other brought to recover the penalty for inspecting flour, without having been duly appointed to that office. Both cases were tried on demurrer; and the County Court, — ■ Pierpoint, J., presiding, — rendered judgment in both cases that the declaration was insufficient, and for the defendants to recover their costs. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. Exceptions by plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
*738The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, Ch. J.
The first of these cases is brought to recover the statute penalty for selling flour, required to be inspected, without procuring the same to be inspected; the plaintiff being at the time, the legally appointed and qualified inspector of flour in the towns where such sales were made; and as such entitled to inspect and brand such flour or casks, and to demand and receive the statute fees for the same. The second action is brought to recover the penalty for usurping the functions of the office of flour inspector, without having been duly…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Baxter v. Winooski Turnpike Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1849
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. McConnellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899
- Newman v. WaiteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1871