Thorp v. Croto
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on the pleadings and master’s report at the December Term, 1905, Eamoille County, Munson, Chancellor. Decree for the petitioner. The defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on the pleadings and master’s report at the December Term, 1905, Eamoille County, Munson, Chancellor. Decree for the petitioner. The defendant appealed. The petition is to foreclose the defendant’s equity of redemption in certain real estate upon which the petitioner holds a mortgage securing six notes of $200 each, all dated November 16, 1901, and payable in six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven years from date, respectively, with interest annually. In. the month of August, 1903, the barn on the mortgaged premises was destroyed by fire, and the insurance,…
1DissentMiles, J.
As a general rule, dissenting opinions are more harmful than beneficial; for the opinion of the majority is usually correct, and in many instances would settle the law upon a *395new question for the first time raised in that case, but for the doubt and suspicion cast upon it by the dissenting opinion. It is only when the judge cannot conscientiously concur with the majority, and when his dissent, without any reason for it being stated, must appear frivolous and weak to all who do not carefully investigate for themselves, that he is justified in writing a dissenting opinion. Such is my…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Waring v. . the Indemnity Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Williams v. LilleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Waring v. . LoderNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- White River Savings Bank v. Capital Savings Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1904
- Fergus v. WilmarthIllinois Supreme Court · 1886
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.