Churchill v. Briggs
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and an auditor was appointed. The only question arising in this case, was in regard to the admissibility of the deposition, of one William K. Upham, on the hearing before the auditor. The caption to the deposition, described the case as “ to be tried by the county court, at the term “ next to be holden, &c.” The defendant insisted, that the auditor erred in admitting the deposition.
Read the full summary
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and an auditor was appointed. The only question arising in this case, was in regard to the admissibility of the deposition, of one William K. Upham, on the hearing before the auditor. The caption to the deposition, described the case as “ to be tried by the county court, at the term “ next to be holden, &c.” The defendant insisted, that the auditor erred in admitting the deposition. The county court, December term, 1851, — Peck, J., presiding, overruled the objection, and rendered judgment on the report, for the plaintiff.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The only question in this case, is in regard to the admissibility of the deposition of William K. Upham. It having been decided by this court, (Brigham v. Abbott, 21 Vt. 455,) that ex parte depositions taken to be used before auditors, are not required to be filed thirty days before the hearing, as in the case of trials in the county, and supreme court, it only remains to inquire, whether this deposition is properly taken, to be used before the auditor. The case is described, as “to he tried by the county court, at the term next to be holden,” &c. It has never been deemed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brigham v. AbbottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849