Legal Opinion

Cootey v. Remington

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided January 5, 1937PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSlack, J.

This action is debt on a judgment alleged to have been obtained in the Rutland municipal court, April 18, 1935. Remington did not appear. The Pipe Company appeared and pleaded specially that plaintiff did not have a valid judgment against it; that on April 18, 1935, plaintiff obtained a judgment against Remington in the Rutland municipal court, in a suit wherein he was defendant and it was trustee, but did not on that, or any other day, obtain judgment against it; that on, to wit, April 8, 1936, the record of said court was altered and changed to read, “Judgment for plaintiff vs. defendant…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Dwight v. HazlettWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Warner v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Weed v. WeedSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
  4. Cty. Bank of San Luis Obispo v. JackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Lowry v. CadySupreme Court of Vermont · 1832

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. R. E. Bean Construction Co. v. Middlebury Associates & Middlebury Developers, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1980
  2. Nichols v. NicholsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1982
  3. City of Barre v. Town of OrangeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1981
  4. RE Bean Const. v. MIDDLEBURY, ETC.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API