Clay v. Wright
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. The cause was referred by agreement of parties, and the referee reported the following facts : That at the annual town meeting in March, 1869, the defendant was duly elected “ agent to prosecute and defend suits ” for the town of Cavendish, and that he had held the same office the year previous; that March 16th, 1869, this plaintiff brought a suit against tbe town of Cavendish, to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by him, on account of an alleged…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The cause was referred by agreement of parties, and the referee reported the following facts : That at the annual town meeting in March, 1869, the defendant was duly elected “ agent to prosecute and defend suits ” for the town of Cavendish, and that he had held the same office the year previous; that March 16th, 1869, this plaintiff brought a suit against tbe town of Cavendish, to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by him, on account of an alleged insufficiency of a highway in said town, which suit was returnable in the town of Chester, aforesaid, before Amos E. Heald,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Pierpoint, Ch. J.
It appears from the report of the referee, that on the 16th of March, 1869, the plaintiff brought a suit against the town of Cavendish, claiming damages for an injury occasioned by the insufficiency of a highway in said town.
The defendant at this time was the agent of the town to' “ prosecute and defend” suits when such town was a party. The plaintiff’s suit against said town was brought before one A. E. Heald, a justice of the peace, and the return day was the 29th day of April, 1869.- Some time before the 12th day of April, the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Brightlook Hospital Ass'n v. GarfieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1918
- Spafford v. Town of NorwichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1899