Legal Opinion

Pennock Et Ux. v. Goodrich Et Ux.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided January 6, 1932PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSlack, J.

The plaintiffs seek to enjoin further prosecution of an action of covenant broken, pending against them in Rut-land county court, wherein these defendants are plaintiffs.

The case has been here before. See 102 Vt. 68, 146 Atl. 1. Since the material facts then appearing are there stated, it is enough to say that plaintiffs conveyed to defendants the Capron farm, so-called, in the town of Rutland, by warranty deed in the usual form. It turned out that at the time of such conveyance there was a right of way across such farm to what is known as the Howard lot, which right was later confirmed by a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Isham v. Bennington Iron Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1847
  2. Dee v. KingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1901
  3. Aldrich v. GriffithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
  4. Pope v. HenrySupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
  5. Howley v. ChaffeeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Traders, Inc. v. BartholomewSupreme Court of Vermont · 1983
  2. Clark v. AQUA TERRA CORPORATIONSupreme Court of Vermont · 1974
  3. Neary v. MartinHawaii Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Spruce Hill Homes, Inc. v. BrieantNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
  5. Hemingway v. ShatneySupreme Court of Vermont · 1989

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

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

Powered by the Exa API