Legal Opinion

Ross v. White

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided January 15, 1888PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Trover. Heard on a referee’s report, April Term, 1887, Rowell, J., presiding. Judgment on the report for the watcb ornament, and the finger ring. The court held as matter of law that there could be no apportionment of costs; but as matter of discretion denied the plaintiff costs as to.claims that he did not establish. Exceptions by defendant. The action was brought to recover for four notes, sewing machine, table, chair, finger ring, watch ornament, etc.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Ross, J.

The defendant insists upon but two questions in this court.

I. That the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the watch ornament. When the plaintiff demanded the return of the articles in controversy, the defendant stated as a reason for refusing to return this article that the intestate had given it to him in her life time. The referee finds, that, unless the declaration of the defendant is competent evidence of the fact stated, as a part of the res gestae, he cannot find that the defendant owned this article ; and that the plaintiff should…

2Cases cited3 opinions

Carleton v. TaylorSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
State v. CarltonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1876
Brainerd v. CaseySupreme Court of Vermont · 1865

3Cited by2 opinions

Conn. River Savings Bank v. AlbeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
Hopkins v. HeywoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913