Powers v. Powers
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Trial by the court. The plaintiff claimed title by virtue of of a decree of the supreme court, reciting the granting, by said court, of a bill of divorce to the plaintiff from the defendant, and assigning to the former, as alimony, the premises in question, in fee, conditioned that the said assignment was to be void on the payment, by the defendant to the plaintiff, of a certain sum, by instalments, the first of which was…
Read the full summary
Ejectment. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Trial by the court. The plaintiff claimed title by virtue of of a decree of the supreme court, reciting the granting, by said court, of a bill of divorce to the plaintiff from the defendant, and assigning to the former, as alimony, the premises in question, in fee, conditioned that the said assignment was to be void on the payment, by the defendant to the plaintiff, of a certain sum, by instalments, the first of which was due and unpaid at the date of plaintiffs writ. The defendant admitted himself in possession, and proved a tender to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
When this cause was tried in the county court, it struck me that the defendant had no relief at law, but must resort to equity to be relieyed from the forfeiture. The judgment was there rendered with a view to have the cause come to this court, when a bill in chancery could be instituted, if it should be thought necessary by defendant’s counsel. We are, however, of opinion, that the defence set up against the plaintiff’s right of recovery, is good at law, as well as iir equity. The policy of this state has not been to favor forfeitures,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hart v. SkinnerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Woodcock v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Horn v. LuptonIndiana Supreme Court · 1914