Capital Garage Co. v. Powell
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, C. J.
The petition for a new trial is based on two grounds: First, newly discovered evidence, shown by the deposition of Frank P. Fleming who now resides at Arlington in the State of Massachusetts; second, the petitioners’ inability to find Fleming in season to have him present as a witness at the trial of the case.
The deponent’s testimony is very material and important, since it strongly tends to support the defendants’ claim at the trial, that defendant Powell was in possession of the demanded premises under and by virtue of a verbal lease to him personally from Thomas J. Heaphy, the owner of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hemmenway v. LincolnSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Badger v. StateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
- Madden v. SpauldingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1920
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dieter v. ScottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
- Shalit v. ShalitSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1927
- State v. MaguireSupreme Court of Vermont · 1927
- Capital Garage Co. v. PowellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- Capital Garage Co. v. GordonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925