Scoville v. Brock
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal in Chancery. Heard' on the pleadings, master’s report and exceptions thereto at the March Term, 1906, "Washington County, Rowell, Chancellor. Decree, strictly pro forma, overruling the orator’s exceptions, sustaining the defendant’s exceptions and dismissing the bill with costs. The orator appealed. This case has been in the Supreme Court three times before. See 75 Yt. 243; 76 Yt. 385; and 79 Yt. 449.
1Opinion of the CourtMunson, J.
When this case was last before us, (79 Vt. 449, 65 Atl. 577, 118 Am. St. Rep. 975) it was remanded that the report might be recommitted for the master to find “whether the defendant, in continuing to hold- the securities, acted with fidelity, -and with that measure of care and diligence that a *409prudent man would have exercised in the same circumstances.” The finding is for the defendant; but the orator contests its validity on several grounds.
It is said that the mandate contemplated a further finding on the case as then made up, and that the taking of additional testimony was not authorized.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lámar v. MicouSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- McCloskey v. GleasonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Brown v. FrenchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Scott v. MaierMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Scoville v. BrockSupreme Court of Vermont · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Walker v. BuhlMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- American Bonding Co. of Baltimore v. RichardsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914