Burnell v. Dodge
Supreme Court of Vermont
Debt, brought to recover of the defendant, a Justice of the Peace, the forfeiture prescribed by sec. 16, chap. 66, Comp. Stat. p. 394, for marrying the plaintiff’s daughter, while a minor, to one Best, and without her parents’ consent. The declaration was substantially the same as the one recited in Ellis v. Hull, 2 Aik. 42, and like that contained no specific averment that the defendant’s acts were “ against the form of the statute in such case made and provided.”
Read the full summary
Debt, brought to recover of the defendant, a Justice of the Peace, the forfeiture prescribed by sec. 16, chap. 66, Comp. Stat. p. 394, for marrying the plaintiff’s daughter, while a minor, to one Best, and without her parents’ consent. The declaration was substantially the same as the one recited in Ellis v. Hull, 2 Aik. 42, and like that contained no specific averment that the defendant’s acts were “ against the form of the statute in such case made and provided.” After a trial upon a plea of the general issue, and verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment for the…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
This is an action of debt to recover the forfeiture prescribed by the statute for solemnizing the marriage of the plaintiff’s minor child, contrary to the provisions of chap. 66 of the Comp. Stat.
The point of exception and debate arises on a motion in arrest, for the lack in the declaration of the averment of contra formam statuti.
*463The court deem the provision of sec. 16 of that chapter to be penal, and not remedial, and regard the action for enforcing the forfeiture, though in form debt, to be in essence a penal action, and technically subject to the rules of law applicable to criminal…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eastman v. CurtisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832
- Ellis v. HullSupreme Court of Vermont · 1826
3Cited by1 opinion
- Richardson v. FletcherSupreme Court of Vermont · 1902