Powers v. Rutland Railroad
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. Pleas, the general issue with notice, and two pleas of accord and satisfaction. Heard on demurrers to each of the special pleas and on a'motion to strike from the record a portion of the notice under the general issue, at the December Term, 1909, Lamoille County, Hall, J., presiding. Demurrers sustained and the two pleas adjudged insufficient, and motion sustained, pro forma, as matter of law. The defendant excepted.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Pleas, the general issue with notice, and two pleas of accord and satisfaction. Heard on demurrers to each of the special pleas and on a'motion to strike from the record a portion of the notice under the general issue, at the December Term, 1909, Lamoille County, Hall, J., presiding. Demurrers sustained and the two pleas adjudged insufficient, and motion sustained, pro forma, as matter of law. The defendant excepted. The sufficiency of a notice under the general issue can be tested only by objecting to the admission of evidence thereunder. Randall v. Presión, 52 Vt. 198; Cade v.…
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.
This is an action of assumpsit. The defendant filed the general issue, two pleas of accord and satisfaction and notice of special matter in defence. As to the general issue, by which the defendant put itself upon the country, the plaintiff did the like; and to each of the special pleas the plaintiff demurred. .The plaintiff filed also a motion that the court strike from the record so much of the notice of special matter as related to accord and satisfaction on the ground that it was the same matter set up in the defendant’s special pleas. The demurrers were sustained and the two pleas of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Clement v. GrahamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1906
- Nott v. StoddardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865
- Benjamin v. McConnellIllinois Supreme Court · 1847
- McMullin v. ErwinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Lee v. FollensbySupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Oakes v. BuckmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- New York Central Railroad v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1918
- McDonough v. HangerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1920
- Bouchard v. Central Vermont Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Wetmore's Admr. v. KarrickSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914