Paul A. Chase

The case involved a tort action for conversion of two cows, where the plaintiff held a chattel mortgage on several cows described by sex, color, and location on a specific farm. The defendant purchased the cows from a third party who had acquired them from the mortgagors, and the defendant had no actual notice of the mortgage. The trial court refused the defendant's request to charge the jury that the mortgage description was too indefinite to bind a third party and entered judgment for the plaintiff after a jury verdict. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that a description by sex, color, and location is prima facie sufficient to allow a third party to identify the property with the aid of such investigation as the description suggests, consistent with prior precedents on chattel mortgage descriptions.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a quo warranto action challenging the mayoral election in Burlington, where the defendant was initially declared the winner by a narrow margin over the relator. The court reviewed evidence of illegal votes in categories such as unauthorized additions to the grand list, delinquent taxpayers, and non-compliant absent voter ballots, adjusting the totals accordingly after subtracting those proven to have been cast for each candidate. It also examined claims of bribery through the use of money and liquor but found insufficient reliable evidence linking the defendant to any unlawful conduct. After these adjustments, the court determined that the relator had not met the burden of proving he received more legal votes than the defendant, whose incumbency carried a presumption of validity. The complaint was therefore dismissed.

elections

This case involved a negligence claim arising from an automobile collision on a snowy, rutted highway in Vermont, where the defendant's car struck the rear left side of the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff moved for a directed verdict and later sought to set aside a jury verdict in the defendant's favor, claiming the evidence and the last clear chance doctrine required a finding of liability. The trial court denied both motions after submitting the case to the jury under instructions that included the last clear chance rule. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the evidence on road conditions, speeds, ruts, and the parties' actions was sufficiently conflicting that reasonable people could differ, making it a proper jury question, and that nothing showed the jury failed to apply the doctrine or that the plaintiff had met his burden of proof.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The Village of Brattleboro sued defendant Yauvey in municipal court for unpaid water rents after she continued using water from the village-owned system following its purchase of the Crowell water company. The defendant claimed a perpetual right to free water based on historical shares in the earlier Hines Aqueduct System, which had been connected to and later replaced by the Crowell system supplying her property. Both parties sought directed verdicts; the trial court granted the village's motion and awarded it recovery. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because the case required determining title to real estate—the water system and associated rights—which municipal courts may adjudicate only in limited trespass actions involving sums under twenty dollars. The court noted that the village's proof of ownership free of the defendant's claimed encumbrance directly put land title at issue.

propertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing their auto insurer for damages after the insurer's attorneys allegedly acted negligently in defending a third-party lawsuit arising from a covered accident. The first trial produced a modest verdict that was set aside, but the attorneys failed to timely appeal that ruling; a retrial then resulted in a much larger judgment exceeding policy limits, which the plaintiffs had to pay. The complaint contained two counts—one for failing to secure review of the first verdict and one concerning a settlement offer—but after the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the first count and entered judgment on it, the jury hung on the second count. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded, holding that entry of judgment was premature while unresolved issues remained on the second count and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a new trial on the remaining claim.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over a lease agreement for quarrying slate on a farm spanning New York and Vermont, where the written description of the leased land was vague and did not specify boundaries or exact location. The plaintiff, as assignee of the lease, operated the quarry for years until the defendant sought to terminate the lease and restrict access, prompting a lawsuit in which the plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction. The court decided that the lease was valid and enforceable only for the specific land actually occupied and worked by the plaintiff, as the defendant's acceptance of payments had effectively marked those boundaries on the ground. It affirmed the decree restraining the defendant from interfering with operations on that occupied land while preventing the plaintiff from expanding beyond it without consent, reasoning that the indefinite description in the lease provided no basis for constructive possession of additional areas.

propertybusiness & regulatory