Dixon v. Sinclear
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was-an. action, of debt in common- form, counting upon a judgement of Chittenden county court, rendered at their March, term, 1826, for the sum of $181,58. The defendant pleaded specially, as follows : “ And the said Joseph Sinclear, in court here, by bis attorney, comes and defends the wrong and injury, when &c., and says, that the said Luther Dixon, from having and maintaining his said action against him. ought to be barred, because he says, that the said Luther,…
Read the full summary
This was-an. action, of debt in common- form, counting upon a judgement of Chittenden county court, rendered at their March, term, 1826, for the sum of $181,58. The defendant pleaded specially, as follows : “ And the said Joseph Sinclear, in court here, by bis attorney, comes and defends the wrong and injury, when &c., and says, that the said Luther Dixon, from having and maintaining his said action against him. ought to be barred, because he says, that the said Luther, heretofore to wit at the county court begun and holden-at Burlington,. within and for the county of Chittenden, on the last…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Phelps, J.
This case comes before us on demurrer, and upon a state of pleadings somewhat complicated, especially as the replication contains a recital of the pleadings in a former action between these parties. As the demurrer was intended to draw in question the effect of all the proceedings in the former suit, as well as in this, it may conduce to a more correct understanding of the questions raised by the pleadings, to arrange the case in the order of time in which the various questions arose.
The plaintiff, it appears, recovered a judgement against…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Slaker v. McCormick-saeltzer Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
- Hogeberg v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- White v. Simonds, Conant & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Phelps v. HoldenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1934