Spaulding v. Mill
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered, and an auditor was appointed, who reported the facts as follows: Previous to 1848, a company, formed for the purpose of manufacturing- woolens, and doing business under the name of the “Ludlow Woolen Mill,” consisted of Abraham Adams, Albert Day and Shepherd Adams. On the 11th day of January, 1848, Day conveyed his interest in the company to Shepherd Adams by deed.
Read the full summary
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered, and an auditor was appointed, who reported the facts as follows: Previous to 1848, a company, formed for the purpose of manufacturing- woolens, and doing business under the name of the “Ludlow Woolen Mill,” consisted of Abraham Adams, Albert Day and Shepherd Adams. On the 11th day of January, 1848, Day conveyed his interest in the company to Shepherd Adams by deed. This deed was not recorded, nor was it left for record at the town clerk’s office until the 13th day of February, 1851. No notice of Day’s retirement from the firm was made to the…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, J.
1. It is insisted on the part of the defendant that the auditor erred in admitting the deposition of the defendant Day, and the deposition of Coffin. It appears by the certificate or caption that the adverse party was notified and did attend. The objection is that the plaintiff gave notice only to the defendant Day, and so the auditor finds the fact. It is claimed that the word party in the statute on this subject includes all the persons that represent one side of the case on the record, and that notice must be given to each. It is insisted that otherwise notice may be given to one of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pratt v. PageSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Stephens v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Holmes v. BurtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rutland Railway, Light & Power Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
- Arocena v. SawyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923