Field v. Randall & Durant
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for money alleged to have been collected by the defendants as attorneys for E. 0. Hammond, the plaintiff’s intestate, and never paid over. The specification was “ for cash collected of D. B. & W. S. Sherman about 1871, and interest on the same, about $100,” and “ cash collected on note against H. A. & W. S. Little about April, 1871, $154.34.” To the first item of the specification the defendants pleaded the general issue.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for money alleged to have been collected by the defendants as attorneys for E. 0. Hammond, the plaintiff’s intestate, and never paid over. The specification was “ for cash collected of D. B. & W. S. Sherman about 1871, and interest on the same, about $100,” and “ cash collected on note against H. A. & W. S. Little about April, 1871, $154.34.” To the first item of the specification the defendants pleaded the general issue. To the second, they pleaded' payment to said intestate by defendant Durant. Trial by jury, March Term, 1877, Redfield, J., presiding. The plaintiff offered in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
The first question presented arises upon the motion to dismiss interposed by the defendants for want of original jurisdiction in the County Court. In the examination of that question, it is necessary to consider the specification of the plaintiff’s claim filed in the case and the evidence introduced in support of the claims or demands described in it.
*35The first was, “ cash collected of D. B. & W. S. Sherman, and interest on the same about 1100,” second, “ cash cól'lected on note against H. A. & W. S. Little about April, 1871, $154.34.”
The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ladd v. HillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832
- Joyal v. BarneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Spafford v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1841
- Miller v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865
- Morrison v. MooreSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832