Harris v. Bottom
Supreme Court of Vermont
Case for Negligence. Heard on general demurrer to the amended declaration at the December Term, 1909, Bennington County, Butler, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled, and declaration adjudged sufficient. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case. This case had been once in the Supreme Court, see 81 Vt. 346. The declaration is insufficient.
Read the full summary
Case for Negligence. Heard on general demurrer to the amended declaration at the December Term, 1909, Bennington County, Butler, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled, and declaration adjudged sufficient. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case. This case had been once in the Supreme Court, see 81 Vt. 346. The declaration is insufficient. It is alleged that the machine became out of repair on the morning of the accident and the declaration must be construed to mean that the defect first became known to the defendants through the complaint of the plaintiff. There is no allegation that…
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.
This is an action for negligence. The cause was once before this Court on questions of pleading, and the declaration then under consideration was adjudged insufficient, the cause was remanded and an amended declaration was filed. It has so fared with the case that it is again here on exceptions to a judgment overruling a general demurrer to the amended declaration and sustaining the sufficiency thereof.
Among the facts which the demurrer admits are these: The defendants were manufacturers .of textile fabrics and employed a large number of operatives of whom the plaintiff was one. . One of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Dolner v. The MonticelloU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1870
- Rice v. . Eureka Paper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Buckner v. Stock Yards Horse & Mule Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- North Chicago Street Railroad v. AufmannIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dailey v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1912