This case was a contract dispute in which the plaintiff sought to recover half of royalties paid under a 1938 agreement, claiming he was entitled to them in exchange for continuing to use his best efforts to negotiate sales or licenses for certain patents. The defendant countered that the plaintiff had failed to perform those duties. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's directed verdict for the plaintiff and entered judgment for the defendant with costs. It held that the mutual contract imposed a continuing duty on the plaintiff to prove performance, but no evidence showed any efforts by him in 1948, making the defendant's motion for a directed verdict proper instead.
This case involved a negligence claim by Helen Wells against the Burlington Rapid Transit Company after she fell while exiting one of its buses in Burlington, Vermont, on October 23, 1947. The plaintiff alleged the bus started moving before she had time to alight safely and that she was forced to exit in a dangerous spot two feet from the curb. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants, finding no negligence in the bus's operation. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's jury instructions adequately covered the sole remaining issue of whether the bus moved prematurely and that the plaintiff's abstract requests to charge were properly disregarded. Other exceptions regarding the weight of the evidence and witness payments were either waived or not properly preserved in the record.
This case involves a negligence action brought by Bert Wells against the Burlington Rapid Transit Company for medical expenses and loss of services stemming from injuries his wife sustained while exiting one of the company's buses as a paying passenger in 1947. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed based on the trial court's refusal to give certain jury instructions and its denial of a motion to set aside the verdict. The appeal was consolidated with a related case brought by the injured wife, Helen Wells, against the same defendant and its insurer. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the matter presented identical legal questions to those resolved in the companion case decided at the same term.
This case was a wrongful death action by the administrator of a paying bus passenger killed in a collision with the defendant's tractor-trailer. The defendant appealed the denial of its motion for a directed verdict, contending that undisputed physical facts showed its driver was not negligent. The court affirmed the denial because evidence of the vehicles' positions at impact, including skid marks and witness testimony, was conflicting and required jury resolution rather than being conclusively established. The truck driver had a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid the collision once it became apparent the bus would not return to its lane, and whether that duty was met remained a factual question.
The case concerned J.E. Jacobs's petition in Washington County Court for the appointment of commissioners to determine the necessity of a public highway laid out by the selectmen of Barre across Jacobs's land. The lower court dismissed the petition after a motion to abate, which argued that not all selectmen had been summoned. The Supreme Court of Vermont reversed the dismissal and remanded the case, ruling that the town of Barre had entered a general appearance that waived any defect in service and gave the court jurisdiction over the necessary party. The court explained that the appearance remained in effect because the town's later request to withdraw it was never acted upon and could not be used to prejudice the petitioner.
This case involves a habeas corpus petition by Merton W. Sage challenging his imprisonment for contempt of court in a divorce proceeding for failing to pay temporary alimony. The court determined that the commitment was for civil contempt, intended to coerce compliance rather than punish, and thus did not require a definite term of imprisonment or an express finding of ability to pay. The court reasoned that the burden was on the relator to justify his non-compliance, and since he had not shown inability to pay in a way that warranted release here, the petition was dismissed, directing him to seek relief from the lower court.