Atkinson v. Allen
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment, for the whole of the first division of the right of Charles Murray, in Charleston, being lot No. 5. Plea, not guilty, and trial by jury. Upon the trial in the county court, the plaintiffs introduced testimony tending to prove that, in 1806, one John Atkinson took possession of one hundred acres of the west part of said lot.
Read the full summary
Ejectment, for the whole of the first division of the right of Charles Murray, in Charleston, being lot No. 5. Plea, not guilty, and trial by jury. Upon the trial in the county court, the plaintiffs introduced testimony tending to prove that, in 1806, one John Atkinson took possession of one hundred acres of the west part of said lot. The plaintiffs also read in evidence two deeds from John Atkinson to themselves, conveying the land in question, one dated in 1820, and the other in 1821; also, an act of the legislature, passed in 1819, authorizing the plaintiffs to hold lands in this state.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redeield J.
— The fact that the county court suffered a juror to sit in the trial of the cause, who was legally incompetent, was no ground for arresting the judgment. It was undoubtedly good ground for a new trial; and, probably, would have been good ground for reversing the judgment on exceptions, or writ of error. Boardman v. Wood, 3 Vt. R. 570.
But the mere fact that a juryman sat in the case, on a former trial, or had formed an opinion, if he had not given a verdict,or in any other way expressed that opinion, constituted no sufficient ground of…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Murchison v. White, 54 Tex. 78 (Tex. 1880)Texas Supreme Court · 1880
- Dow v. BlakeIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Dunnett v. Shields and ConantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- State v. SawtelleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
- Streety & Co. v. McCurdySupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.