Scott v. McDonough
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on book, commenced, originally, in the county court, and was referred to an auditor, who reported a balance of one hundred and two dollars due the plaintiff. The defendant insisted before the auditor that the court had no jurisdiction of the case, but no motion to dismiss it, upon that ground, was made in writing, nor was any entered upon the docket, in the county court.
Read the full summary
This was an action on book, commenced, originally, in the county court, and was referred to an auditor, who reported a balance of one hundred and two dollars due the plaintiff. The defendant insisted before the auditor that the court had no jurisdiction of the case, but no motion to dismiss it, upon that ground, was made in writing, nor was any entered upon the docket, in the county court. The court rendered judgment, September Term, 1866, Pieepoint, Ch. J., presiding, pro forma, upon the report for the defendant, — to which the plaintiffs excepted. The items of the plaintiffs’ account were…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bakeett, J.
The only question in this ease is, whether the county court had original jurisdiction.
The account as it stood on the original book of the plaintiffs did not show a debit side that would authorize the suit to be brought into the county court. Some items for paint were left blank as to price, and some were carried out at thirty cents per pound. Some items of work were left blank, and some were carried out at $2.25 per day.
In order to make a debit side that would show a sufficient amount to give jurisdiction, it was necessary to fill all the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Southwick v. Reuben MerrillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
- Miller v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865