Ellis v. Hull
Supreme Court of Vermont
THE action below, which wwas debt, for a penalty of $70 under the act regulating marriage and divorce, was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, and was brought by appeal to Franklin county court, where the plaintiff filed the following declaration:— And now the said, Joseph Ellis in court, complains and declares against the said Samuel P. Hull, in a plea that to the said Joseph the said Samuel render the sum of seventy dollars, which to the said Joseph the…
Read the full summary
THE action below, which wwas debt, for a penalty of $70 under the act regulating marriage and divorce, was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, and was brought by appeal to Franklin county court, where the plaintiff filed the following declaration:— And now the said, Joseph Ellis in court, complains and declares against the said Samuel P. Hull, in a plea that to the said Joseph the said Samuel render the sum of seventy dollars, which to the said Joseph the said Samuel P. justly owes, and from him unjustly detains, for that heretofore, to wit, on the 17th day of August, 1824,…
1Opinion of the Court
After solemn argument,, the opinion of the Court was pronounced by
Prentiss, J.
This writ of error is sued, to reverse the judgment of the county court, in an action brought by the plaintiff *43in error, to recover of the defendant, the penalty given by the 4th section of the act regulating marriage and divorce. (Comp. Stat. ch. 44, p. 361.) Whether the judgment is to be reyersed or affirmed, depends on the sufficiency or insufficiency of the plaintiff’s declaration. If the defendant’s construction of the statute is correct, and the penalty was not incurred by him, unless he solemnized the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Richardson v. FletcherSupreme Court of Vermont · 1902
- Village of Hardwick v. Vermont Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Burnell v. DodgeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860