Stearns v. Stearns
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a petition for a divorce. stated to the court, that they were not employed by the petitionee, but that they appeared as the attorneys of his creditors, -who had levied their executions upon real estate, held by him, in right of his wife, the petitioner, and that the levying creditors believed this petition to be collusive, between the petitioner and petitioliee, to defeat the rights of the creditors under such levies, and they moved for leave to appear and oppose…
Read the full summary
This was a petition for a divorce. stated to the court, that they were not employed by the petitionee, but that they appeared as the attorneys of his creditors, -who had levied their executions upon real estate, held by him, in right of his wife, the petitioner, and that the levying creditors believed this petition to be collusive, between the petitioner and petitioliee, to defeat the rights of the creditors under such levies, and they moved for leave to appear and oppose the petition, and requested the court to order the affidavits and other evidence in the case to be submitted to them for…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The attorneys of the creditors cannot, as such, appear. But they, or any member of the bar, may, as amici curia, suggest to the court that the petition is collusive, and direct the attention of the court, to such parts of the testimony as may show collusion, or, as may be insufficient to sustain the petition. But the court will not direct the clerk or the counsel for the petitioner, to submit the affidavits or other testimony relied upon, in support of the petition, to the inspection of such amici curia.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hemenway v. HemenwaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- Burke v. BurkeThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1893
- Barrup v. BarrupSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
- Barrup v. BarrupSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014