Pindar v. Barlow
Supreme Court of Vermont
1. The deposition was inadmissible because the adjournment of the time of taking it, in the absence of both parties and without the request of or any notice to both of them, was without authority and illegal. Such a practice, if tolerated, would open the door to all sorts of fraud and deceit; 1. Aik. 264; 4 Vt. 405. 2. As against the plaintiff who is the payee of the note, the illegality or invalidity of the consideration may be insisted upon by the defendant.
Read the full summary
1. The deposition was inadmissible because the adjournment of the time of taking it, in the absence of both parties and without the request of or any notice to both of them, was without authority and illegal. Such a practice, if tolerated, would open the door to all sorts of fraud and deceit; 1. Aik. 264; 4 Vt. 405. 2. As against the plaintiff who is the payee of the note, the illegality or invalidity of the consideration may be insisted upon by the defendant. The peculiar characteristic of a negotiable note as to the conclusiveness of its consideration, does not operate until the note has…
1Opinion of the Court
Redfield, Ch. J.
I. In regard to the deposition admitted in this case we have found no serious difficulty. There seems to be a necessity, practically, that the justice should possess the power to adjourn the taking of a deposition. Serious inconvenience,, and sometimes the entire failure of the proceeding might occur if no such power existed. If it be conceded to exist, it must rest in the discretion of the magistrate to be exercised, as every legal discretion must be, in a reasonable and proper manner. The only limitation, which it now occurs to us it is-necessary to annex to its exercise,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. LentiniSupreme Court of Vermont · 1966
- Converse v. FosterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Brophy Grocery Co. v. WilsonMontana Supreme Court · 1912
- Samuel Streit & Co. v. SanbornSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874