Allen v. Mann
Supreme Court of Vermont
THIS was an action of trespass on the case, in which the plaintiff declared, in substance, that on the 26th day of November, 1793, he took out a writ of summons of that date, signed by-, against W. G. of Vergennes, on a note of hand given him by the said W. G. on the 10th day of January, 1794, for the sum of £-, which writ was made returnable to the County Court then next to be hoiden for the County of Chittenden, on the-Monday of February, 1794. — That on the 30th day of…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass on the case, in which the plaintiff declared, in substance, that on the 26th day of November, 1793, he took out a writ of summons of that date, signed by-, against W. G. of Vergennes, on a note of hand given him by the said W. G. on the 10th day of January, 1794, for the sum of £-, which writ was made returnable to the County Court then next to be hoiden for the County of Chittenden, on the-Monday of February, 1794. — That on the 30th day of November, 1793, he delivered the said writ to the defendant, then a legal Constable of said Vergennes, to serve and return…
1Opinion of the Court
Chipman, Ch. J.
It will be in vain for the plaintiff to proceed-. It is clear, as well from the declaration as the proof, that there is no foundation for the action. The declaration is wholly insufficient to support a j udgment, should the plaintiff obtain a verdict. From his own shewing it appears that the plaintiff has sustained no injury, unless from his own voluntary act. The taking out of a writ is the commencement of an action, to avoid the statute of limitations, if it be actually taken out, it is sufficient if it be served in time for the next Court, to which it must be made…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Chapman v. GoodrichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- Cross v. BarberSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1888