Doubleday v. Marstin
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass upon the freehold. Jurisdiction. Trespass upon the freehold. The plaintiff declared “ that the “ defendant at Sharon, on the first day of April, A. D., 1851, and “ on divers other days and times between that day and the day of “ the purchase of this writ, with force and arms broke and entered “the plaintiff’s close, situated in said Sharon, and then and there “took and carried away and destroyed the plaintiff’s fence then “upon said close, of great value, to wit, of…
Read the full summary
Trespass upon the freehold. Jurisdiction. Trespass upon the freehold. The plaintiff declared “ that the “ defendant at Sharon, on the first day of April, A. D., 1851, and “ on divers other days and times between that day and the day of “ the purchase of this writ, with force and arms broke and entered “the plaintiff’s close, situated in said Sharon, and then and there “took and carried away and destroyed the plaintiff’s fence then “upon said close, of great value, to wit, of the value of twenty- “ five dollars; and, with cattle and sheep, broke down and destroyed “the plaintiff’s fruit trees…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
We think that in an action of trespass upon the *489freehold, and upon the trial of which the plaintiff is put upon the proof of his title, and the sum demanded in damages exceeds the sum of twenty dollars, (which is this case) the county court has original jurisdiction of the cause, and that it is not competent for the court to dismiss the action for the want of jurisdiction, because the plaintiff’s evidence did not tend to prove that his damages amounted in the language of this bill of exceptions, to twenty dollars. We are not inclined in this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kittridge v. RollinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1840