Stanley v. Barker
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered in the County Court, and auditors were appointed, who reported substantially as follows: That plaintiff’s account is principally for work on a saw-mill, and amounts to the sum of $169 75; and on plaintiff’s account are two items of credit, to wit: “By cash and sundries, $14 46 ; “by judgment against Ezra Barker, paid, $65 05.” That the plaintiff commenced an action against the said Ezra, one of the defendants on this same…
Read the full summary
Book Account. Judgment to account was rendered in the County Court, and auditors were appointed, who reported substantially as follows: That plaintiff’s account is principally for work on a saw-mill, and amounts to the sum of $169 75; and on plaintiff’s account are two items of credit, to wit: “By cash and sundries, $14 46 ; “by judgment against Ezra Barker, paid, $65 05.” That the plaintiff commenced an action against the said Ezra, one of the defendants on this same account, at the December Term of the County Court, in 1848; that an auditor was appointed, who found that $65 05 of said…
1Opinion of the Court
*510The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redeield, Ch. J.
The only question raised, in the present case, is in regard to the jurisdiction of the County Court. It is not usual to defeat the jurisdiction of any court, in civil actions, by rigid construction, where the matter is fairly doubtful. The course of the decisions of this court upon that subject, show that the jurisdiction invoked by the party in good faith, fairly believing in its validity, has most usually been sustained. And this is as it should be. It is sometimes perplexing to know precisely to which of two jurisdictions a case does…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Scott v. MooreSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Miller v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865