Sorenberger v. Houghton
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of trespass guare clausum fregit. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury at the September Term, 1867, Wilson, J., presiding. It appeared that for about thirteen years before the commencement of this suit., the plaintiff and defendant were adjoining landowners ; that their adjoining lands were respectively used as pasture lands ; that prior to 1861 they divided the fence between them.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass guare clausum fregit. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury at the September Term, 1867, Wilson, J., presiding. It appeared that for about thirteen years before the commencement of this suit., the plaintiff and defendant were adjoining landowners ; that their adjoining lands were respectively used as pasture lands ; that prior to 1861 they divided the fence between them. The plaintiff introduced testimony tending to prove that the defendant’s cattle and horses every year, from about the middle of May, 1861, to the time this suit was commenced, which was in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.
This is trespass guare clausum for breaking and entering of the defendant’s cattle into the plaintiff’s close.
The evidence of the plaintiff showed the fact as alleged. There was no evidence to the contrary.
This would authorize the court to tell the jury that, if they believed the evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. It was not necessary that the plaintiff' should give any evidence as to quality of his fence, or that it was what is called legal fence. ' Though evidence was given on that subject, yet none of it tended to show that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Keenan v. CavanaughSupreme Court of Vermont · 1872
- Eddy v. KinneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1888