Swift v. Raymond
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of account, which was referred by a rule of the county court and by agreement of the parties. The referees reported specially as follows:— “It appeared that some time in the year 1833, one Swift “ Vanderlip, being in failing circumstances, made a written as- “ signment to the defendant of a certain unliquidated demand “ in his favor against Dunton & Co., which was then in suit “ in Bennington county court, to secure which, personal pro- “ perty of said…
Read the full summary
This was an action of account, which was referred by a rule of the county court and by agreement of the parties. The referees reported specially as follows:— “It appeared that some time in the year 1833, one Swift “ Vanderlip, being in failing circumstances, made a written as- “ signment to the defendant of a certain unliquidated demand “ in his favor against Dunton & Co., which was then in suit “ in Bennington county court, to secure which, personal pro- “ perty of said Dunton & Co., had been "attached by one “ James Curtis, an authorized person, to the amount of about “ $ 1800. In said…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, C. J.
This action was referred. The parties have treated the report, as the report of auditors, and not of referees. The rules, which govern the court in accepting or rejecting the reports of referees and auditors, are very different. It is not necessary, however, to advert to the distinction, as there appears to be no reason for disturbing the judgment of the county court, whether the report as considered as that of referees'or auditors. From the multitude of facts and statements, which are detailed in the report, a great part of which are…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kimball v. Estate of BaxterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854