Legal Opinion
Miele v. Miele
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided February 4, 1964No. 1228PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarney, J.
When judgment pro confesso was entered against the defendant for failing to make timely response to a bill of complaint, he moved to have the judgment stricken and for leave to file an answer. Upon denial, he filed a proper notice of appeal, effective as to both the order denying leave to answer and the judgment order itself.
In asking permission to file an answer out of time, the defendant sought to have the chancellor set aside the judgment because certain rules of the court of chancery (12 V.S.A. App. III) were not followed. Since, when justice requires, the chancellor has the discretionary…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- O'brien, Admr. v. HoldenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1932
- Century Indemnity Co. v. MeadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1960
- Straw v. MowerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- Patch v. SquiresSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933
- Brown v. OsgoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Loux v. Gabelhart (In Re Carriage House, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · 1990
- Hudson v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1978
- Mt. Mansfield Television, Inc. v. University of VermontSupreme Court of Vermont · 1967