Richardson v. Royalton & Woodstock Turnpike Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action on the case for damages, occasioned for insufficiency of defendant’s bridge. Plea, general issue. The plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to prove that in the month of November, A. D. 1831, they were in the town of Royalton with a drove of fat cattle for the Brighton market, consisting of about one hundred head, principally oxen.
Read the full summary
Action on the case for damages, occasioned for insufficiency of defendant’s bridge. Plea, general issue. The plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to prove that in the month of November, A. D. 1831, they were in the town of Royalton with a drove of fat cattle for the Brighton market, consisting of about one hundred head, principally oxen. That in passing the defendant’s bridge, over White River, with said drove of cattle, the southern reach of the bridge fell with said cattle and precipitated eighteen or twenty head into the river, and that seven were much bruised and wounded, so that it…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mattocks, J.
— In-this cause, the admission of certain testimony and the charge of the court are first drawn in question, by the bill of exceptions; and then the sufficiency of the declaration, *503by the motion in arrest. The plaintiffs offered and were permitted to prove, though objected to, that in 1831 the defendants made the two northern reaches of said bridge new, as the old ones had stood about nine years, and that these new reaches . . were stronger than those which fell with the cattle. Had this evidence any tendency to show the bridge insufficient…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. BurpeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Baxter v. Winooski Turnpike Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Gilfillan v. Gilfillan's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
- Barney's Admrx. v. Quaker Oats Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1912
- State v. UpsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.