Waterman v. Clark
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass for removing an ice house, hog house, whey vats, etc. The two cases were tried together, April Term, 1885, Taft, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion. The right of the defendants to remove the structures is to be determined as it stood January 26, 1878, when the plaintiff entered and excluded the defendants.
Read the full summary
Trespass for removing an ice house, hog house, whey vats, etc. The two cases were tried together, April Term, 1885, Taft, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion. The right of the defendants to remove the structures is to be determined as it stood January 26, 1878, when the plaintiff entered and excluded the defendants. A mere omission to occupy the premises, or cessation of the business for a year, cannot work a- forfeiture under the lease; but only a “ wish to discontinue entirely and abandon,” etc., and that wish indicated by a vote. There was no such…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Walker, J.
These two actions were for breaking and entering the same close on the 2d and 27th days of November, 1883, and removing certain structures and manufacturing fixtures erected thereon under the lease referred to; and the same principles of law are applicable to both cases.
The lease, under which the plaintiff claims that the lessee’s right to remove the structures and fixtures sued for in these actions, had become forfeited by neglect to remove the structures and fixtures at some time earlier than January 26, 1878, was given by Horace L. Hoxie,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mongeon Bay Properties, LLC v. Mallets Bay Homeowner's Assn., Anthony J. Sineni and Merrimack Mortagage Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2016
- Palmer's Exr. v. RyanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
- State ex rel. Allen v. BuchananSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893