Town of Hartland v. Henry
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on award. Plea, tbe general issue, and trial by court at tbe December term, 1871, Barrett, J., presiding. Parol evidence was given tending to show that at the' close of tbe trial before tbe arbitrators, by tbe consent and concurrence of tbe parties and counsel, tbe matter of costs of the arbitration was left to tbe arbitrators to be determined and awarded, and to that end tbe costs of each party were then taxed by the attorneys respectively, and put into the bands…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on award. Plea, tbe general issue, and trial by court at tbe December term, 1871, Barrett, J., presiding. Parol evidence was given tending to show that at the' close of tbe trial before tbe arbitrators, by tbe consent and concurrence of tbe parties and counsel, tbe matter of costs of the arbitration was left to tbe arbitrators to be determined and awarded, and to that end tbe costs of each party were then taxed by the attorneys respectively, and put into the bands of tbe arbitrators. It appeared that tbe submission was made a few days before tbe December term of this court, 1869,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Peok, J.
The county court committed no error in receiving the parol evidence as to the submission of the question of costs of arbitration to the award of arbitrators, of which the defendant can complain, as it does not appear that he objected to that evidence. The exception taken at the trial does not extend to the question of the admissibility of that evidence. Had the exceptions shown that the parol evidence was objected to on the part of the defense, there would have been more plausible ground to claim that the exception embraced the ruling of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Davenport v. HubbardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873
- Dennis v. StoughtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Rollins v. ChalmersSupreme Court of Vermont · 1879