Bell v. Mason
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced before a justice of the peace and appealed to the county court, and was referred, by agreement of parties, at the December term, 1836. No report was made at the June term, 1837, but the case was continued, and it did not appear, by any enti-y on the docket of the county court, that the rule of reference was enlarged at that term. At the December term, 1837, the referees reported as follows ; — to wit, “That, in 1830, Geo.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced before a justice of the peace and appealed to the county court, and was referred, by agreement of parties, at the December term, 1836. No report was made at the June term, 1837, but the case was continued, and it did not appear, by any enti-y on the docket of the county court, that the rule of reference was enlarged at that term. At the December term, 1837, the referees reported as follows ; — to wit, “That, in 1830, Geo. M. Mason was the owner of, and “ attorney in, a certain suit then pending in Orleans county “ court, in favor of Cook and Smith…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
The ad damnum usually determines the jurisdiction, unless from the declaration it is certain that the matter in demand exceeds the jurisdiction. In this case there are several counts, which may be for the same subject matter and, from the ad damnum being but one hundred dollars, they must have been intended for the same thing. The justice, therefore, had jurisdiction. This same point was so decided in Richardson v. Denison, 1 Aik. R. 210.
This case was referred, by rule of court, December Term, 1836. What was done at June Term, 1837, does…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Kelley v. Town of MoretownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1899
- Luce v. MinardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Scott v. DarlingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- Vanderburg v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850