Cummings v. Clark
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass for a cofv. Plea not guilty, with notice of special matter. Issue joined to the court. The plaintiff’, in support of the issue on his part, proved that he was the owner of the cow, and that the defendant Clark, by the direction of the other defendants, took and drove her away.
Read the full summary
Trespass for a cofv. Plea not guilty, with notice of special matter. Issue joined to the court. The plaintiff’, in support of the issue on his part, proved that he was the owner of the cow, and that the defendant Clark, by the direction of the other defendants, took and drove her away. The defendants, in support of the issue on their part, proved that the said Orrin Smith, Sheffield Hayward, Jr. and Robert Johnson, were, at the annual March meeting in Berlin, in 1841, duly elected selectmen of said town; that, as such selectmen, they made out a legal highway tax bill for highway district No.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
1. The first question in this case is, whether the refusal of a highway surveyor to execute a receipt for a tax bill, offered to him for collection, by the selectmen, is, ipso facto, a vacating of the office. We think it is not. Such refusal is, at most, the omission by such officer of a prescribed duty. The statute does not, in terms, visit any such consequence, as that contended for, upon the act complained of. To give it that effect, by construction, would be to adopt a principle, which, in practice, would render it necessary to fill…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Colton v. Beardsley, Bigelow & SpoonerNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Turnipseed v. HudsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1874
- Smith & Son, Inc. v. Town of HartfordSupreme Court of Vermont · 1938
- Short v. SymmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- People ex rel. Devlin v. PeabodyNew York Supreme Court · 1858
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.