Waterman v. Hall
Supreme Court of Vermont
This action came into the county eouvt by appeal. The original declaration, used before the justice of the peace who tried the case, was in these words; “In a plea of the case, For that whereas, on ‘ the sixth day of September, A. D. 1840, at Norwich, the said ‘ Landrus Waterman, plaintiff, was possessed of a certain bay mare, ‘of the value of one hundred dollars, of the proper goods of him, ‘the said Waterman, whereby he received benefit and profit; yet ‘ the said David…
Read the full summary
This action came into the county eouvt by appeal. The original declaration, used before the justice of the peace who tried the case, was in these words; “In a plea of the case, For that whereas, on ‘ the sixth day of September, A. D. 1840, at Norwich, the said ‘ Landrus Waterman, plaintiff, was possessed of a certain bay mare, ‘of the value of one hundred dollars, of the proper goods of him, ‘the said Waterman, whereby he received benefit and profit; yet ‘ the said David Hall and Richard Luther, defendants, not ignorant ‘of the premises, but maliciously intending and contriving to injure ‘…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
As the action progressed to a final trial and judgment after the amendment took place, it must appear beyond doubt that the amendment was permitted contrary to law, before we can be justified in vacating those subsequent proceedings for that cause.
We have to determine whether the original declaration must necessarily be regarded as a declaration in trespass, and not in trespass on the case. That the party intended to declare in case, and not in trespass, is sufficiently evident. He not only entitled his declaration “ a plea of the case,” but…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Eaton v. HillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870
- Nowell v. BehrendsDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1908
- Trafford v. HubbardSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1886