Legal Opinion

Austin v. Hallstrom

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided February 5, 1952No. 477PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCleary, J.

The plaintiffs' writ states that this is “An Action of Trespass on the Freehold-Quare Clausum Fregit, vi et armis.” The defendant’s answer is a general denial and justification. During the trial the plaintiffs moved to amend their action by making Helen M. Austin a party plaintiff. The plaintiffs also moved that the defendant be required to elect upon which of his inconsistent defenses he was going to rely. The case is here on the plaintiffs’ exceptions to the denial of both motions.

The plaintiffs base their title to the property concerned on a warranty deed to them from Helen M. Austin which…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Humphrey v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1927
  2. Cherry v. Canal Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Bohrer v. DavisNebraska Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Johansson's Admr. v. Granite Savings Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1945
  5. Brooks v. UlanetSupreme Court of Vermont · 1949

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Orkin Exterminating Company v. O'HANLONSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. Munson v. GoodroSupreme Court of Vermont · 1964
  3. Robin Levarn v. Charles Levarn & Karen LevarnSupreme Court of Vermont · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API