In re Peterson
Supreme Court of Vermont
Habeas Corpus returnable at Burlington in Chittenden County before Haselton, J.„ and duly adjourned into the Supreme Court at its May Term, 1904; argued at that term'; re-argued at the October Term, 1904. The opinion states the facts. The judgment was in an action of trover. The gist of this action is conversion.
Read the full summary
Habeas Corpus returnable at Burlington in Chittenden County before Haselton, J.„ and duly adjourned into the Supreme Court at its May Term, 1904; argued at that term'; re-argued at the October Term, 1904. The opinion states the facts. The judgment was in an action of trover. The gist of this action is conversion. Conversion is not one of the exceptions mentioned in § 17 of the U. S. Bankruptcy Act, 1898^ as amended by the Act of Feb. 5, 1903. Conversion is not a fraud under that Act. Conversion is not obtaining goods by false pretences or false representations. It is held to be a breach of…
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, J.
On September 11, 1903, judgment was rendered by the county court against the relator in an action of trover for the sum of $828.71 damages and costs, in favor of Eugene Gosselin and A. P'. Gosselin, co-partners. At the time of rendering this judgment the court considered, ordered, and adjudged that the cause of action arose from the wilful and malicious act or neglect of the relator, and that he ought to be confined in close jail, a certificate whereof was stated upon the alias execution issued upon said judgment as hereinafter stated. See V. S. 1751. The relator was adjudged a bankrupt by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bailey's Admx. v. GleasonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- Watson v. GoodnoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. LadrieSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- In re GroutSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914