Boyce v. Bolster
Supreme Court of Vermont
General Assumpsit by the surviving partner. Pleas, the general issue, Statute of Limitations, payment and declaration in offset in general assumpsit. Trial by jury at the September Term, 1904, Washington County, Tyler, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The fact that the load of wood was delivered to the surviving partner did not prevent it from being a payment on the partnership account.
Read the full summary
General Assumpsit by the surviving partner. Pleas, the general issue, Statute of Limitations, payment and declaration in offset in general assumpsit. Trial by jury at the September Term, 1904, Washington County, Tyler, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The fact that the load of wood was delivered to the surviving partner did not prevent it from being a payment on the partnership account. Thrall v. Seward, 37 Vt. 573; Stebbins v. Willard, 53 Vt. 665, 668; Holt v. Howard, 77 Vt. 49.
1Opinion of the CourtPowers, J.
The defendant moves to dismiss these exceptions on the ground that the bill was not submitted to him within the time specified in, and as required by County Court Rule 29.
It is a matter of regret that the requirements of this rule are too often disregarded; but we deem the whole subject to *42be one to be considered and dealt with by the presiding judge of the trial court. The rule is a rule of that court. It expressly provides that the times therein limited may be extended by special leave of the presiding judge; and Rule 46 empowers the presiding judge, when it is for him alone to act, to take…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dee v. KingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1905
- Buchanan v. CookSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Eastabrooks v. PrentissSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
3Cited by1 opinion
- Piche v. City of WinooskiSupreme Court of Vermont · 1930