Hastings v. Belden
Supreme Court of Vermont
Bill in chancery. Heard on special demurrer, June Term, 1882, Caledonia County. Ross, Chancellor, dismissed the bill. The bill alleged that the orators, during the year 1874, were the trustees of the “Second Universalist Society of St. Johnsbury, Yt.,” a religious organization duly formed and existing under the laws ; that, as such trustees they were duly authorized to transact most of the business for said society, to borrow and expend money for the benefit and use of said…
Read the full summary
Bill in chancery. Heard on special demurrer, June Term, 1882, Caledonia County. Ross, Chancellor, dismissed the bill. The bill alleged that the orators, during the year 1874, were the trustees of the “Second Universalist Society of St. Johnsbury, Yt.,” a religious organization duly formed and existing under the laws ; that, as such trustees they were duly authorized to transact most of the business for said society, to borrow and expend money for the benefit and use of said society, and to execute for and in behalf of said society notes or other obligations for money so borrowed ; that on the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Taft, J.
The defendants, Hyde, Belden and Ide, have demurred to the bill, setting forth as causes: first, want of equity; second, that the orators can have full relief at law; third, that Woodbury is not a proper party defendant.
I. Under the first cause, the defendants can ore tenus, assign as error, any defect in substance. Cooper Eq. PL 118 ; and they claim that the attorneys, Belden and Ide, are not proper parties. We understand the rule to be that attorneys can only be made parties to a suit in equity in cases where they have so involved themselves…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Massman Construction Co. v. Nebraska Workmen's Compensation CourtNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
- Wheeler v. Town of St. JohnsburySupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Weed v. HuntSupreme Court of Vermont · 1904