Comstock's Admr. v. Jacobs
Supreme Court of Vermont
General Assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. .Trial by jury at the June Term, 1911, Orange County, Butter, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The opinion states the case. This case has been once before in the Supreme Court, see 84 Vt. 277.
1Opinion of the CourtPowers, J.
This case has been here before, and the former opinion, — Comstock’s Admr. v. Jacobs, 84 Vt. 277, contains a full statement of the .facts, and inasmuch as they were not materially different in the trial now under review, they need not be here 'repeated.
The wife of the defendant was allowed to testify in his behalf and the plaintiff says she was incompetent under the statute. But this question is not before us. The exceptions show that when this witness was offered, the plaintiff objected, saying that she was interested in the cause of action and “was not a competent witness to testify to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. RyderSupreme Court of Vermont · 1908
- Comstock's v. JacobsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- State v. ManningSupreme Court of Vermont · 1903
- Kimball v. LockeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Fellows v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Waterman v. MoodySupreme Court of Vermont · 1918
- Gilfillan v. Gilfillan's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
- Comstock's Admr. v. JacobsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915
- Reed v. HendeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1927
- In re Bugbee's WillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.