Thibault v. Connecticut Valley Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
General Assumpsit. Heard on motion to dismiss, at the March Term, 1907, Essex County, Taylor, J., presiding. Motion overruled. Defendant excepted.
Read the full summary
General Assumpsit. Heard on motion to dismiss, at the March Term, 1907, Essex County, Taylor, J., presiding. Motion overruled. Defendant excepted. The motion was: “And now comes the said defendant, by its attorneys, Dale & Amey, who appear specially in said cause for this purpose, and moves this Honorable Court to dismiss said cause, for that the service of the original writ therein is not a lawful service of said writ upon said defendant according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided; as appears by the copy of record and appeal now on file in said court herein referred…
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, J.
It is sufficient for the disposition of the case that the motion to dismiss does not point out in what respect the service of the writ was defective. Nye v. Burlington & Lamoille R. R. Co., 60 Vt. 585.
Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nye v. Burlington & Lamoille R. R.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1887
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. CargoSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- Bankers' Surety Co. v. Town of HollyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- In re ByronSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909