Sleeper v. Croker
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The bill alleged that on the 3d of March, 1873, defendant rendered his account of 187.98 against Sleeper for services as his attorney, and informed Sleeper by letter that he would discount $17 for immediate payment;' that Sleeper endeavored to raise the money, and hoped the defendant would wait on him thirty days; that on the 18th of said March, defendant commenced a suit against Sleeper before a justice that he discontinued, and on the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Chancery. The bill alleged that on the 3d of March, 1873, defendant rendered his account of 187.98 against Sleeper for services as his attorney, and informed Sleeper by letter that he would discount $17 for immediate payment;' that Sleeper endeavored to raise the money, and hoped the defendant would wait on him thirty days; that on the 18th of said March, defendant commenced a suit against Sleeper before a justice that he discontinued, and on the 20th of March commenced another suit returnable April 12th, wherein he summoned Kimball as trustee ; that on April 7th,…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, J.
As this case comes to this court by appeal from the decision of the Court of Chancery upon demurrer, the whole case appears upon the face of the petition. The court has not considered the merits of the petition or complaint, further than to determine whether its character is such as to be cognizable in a court of chancery. We think a court of chancery is not the appropriate tribunal to redress the grievance complained of. A case must be a very extraordinary one, to justify a court of chancery in interfering to correct an alleged irregularity of this character iñ a judgment at law, and thereby…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Weed v. HuntSupreme Court of Vermont · 1904
- Weed v. HuntSupreme Court of Vermont · 1908
- Congdon v. CongdonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887