Walter H. Cleary

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

torts & liability

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.

torts & liability

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.

procedureproperty

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.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns a lawsuit by Johnson against Rickard to recover money paid as usurious interest. After the county court overruled the plaintiff's demurrer and the matter was passed to the Supreme Court without exceptions being filed, the plaintiff moved to transfer the case to the Court of Chancery, which the county court granted over the defendant's objection. The Supreme Court held that because no exceptions were filed, appellate jurisdiction did not attach and the case remained in county court, which retained discretion to permit a transfer to equity in the absence of a final judgment. The court therefore affirmed the transfer order and the denial of the defendant's motion for judgment.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a negligence action brought by the administrator of Mabel Dawley's estate against the defendant driver after she was fatally injured in a 1944 pedestrian-vehicle collision at an intersection with a stoplight and crosswalk in Ludlow, Vermont. A jury returned a verdict for the defendant, but the plaintiff appealed exceptions to the jury instructions and the denial of a motion for a new trial. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court failed to provide adequate instructions on the rights and duties of pedestrians and drivers at such intersections, the effect of any brake failure if caused by the defendant's own negligence, and the requirement to keep the vehicle under control. The court reasoned that these were essential elements of the case requiring specific guidance beyond general statements on due care, and that the omissions constituted reversible error.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a contract action by the plaintiffs to recover unpaid rents under a written lease originally granted by their assignor to the defendant oil company for certain premises. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs covering rent from July 1940 through January 1947, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the lease qualified as a sealed specialty under the relevant statutes, making the eight-year limitations period applicable so that earlier rent claims were not time-barred; the findings of fact were sufficient to support the judgment; and the lease provision was treated as granting an extension rather than a renewal, with the landlord's acquiescence binding the tenant who held over after the initial term.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a petition for declaratory judgment by trustees under George A. Leonard's will seeking interpretation of a clause establishing a trust for his widow, Amelia M. Leonard. The trust directed payment of income to the widow for life and allowed invasion of principal if that income proved insufficient for her comfortable support in sickness and health, with the remainder to go to three nieces upon her death. The sole issue was whether the trustees must first require the widow to exhaust her own assets (including jointly owned property that passed to her by survivorship) before using trust principal. The court held that the trustees should pay from trust income and, if needed, principal for the widow's support without regard to her separate estate. The decision rested on the testator's intent as expressed in the will's language, which conditioned principal invasion solely on insufficient trust income rather than the widow's overall financial need, and on the legal preference for liberal construction of spousal support provisions.

family lawproperty

This case involved a construction contract for a freeze locker plant where the builder failed to perform, leading the owner to sue the builder's surety on a performance bond for damages, while two material suppliers sought to enforce mechanics' liens against the property. The trial court ruled in favor of the owner against the surety and one lien claimant but against the other lien claimant; on appeal, the court held that the bond's contractual suit deadline violated a state statute prohibiting limitations shorter than twelve months from the date of loss or default, rendering that provision void, and that timely notice of breach had been given. The court further determined that one lien was invalid due to untimely filing that could not be revived by the claimant's unilateral repossession of materials, while affirming the other lien and reducing the owner's damages award by $1,000 before remanding for a new decree.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Harold Benson challenging the election of W. Robinson Martin as Selectman for the Town of Manchester, specifically regarding the validity of 93 ballots that used gummed stickers with Martin's name and a printed "X" instead of a voter-made mark. The court decided that these ballots were valid and that Martin had been duly elected. The reasoning centered on the principle that if a voter's intent can be determined with reasonable certainty and there is substantial compliance with election laws, the vote should be counted; here, affixing the sticker clearly indicated the choice and fulfilled the marking requirement under the amended statute.

electionsprocedure

This tort case arose from a 1936 multi-car accident on a Vermont highway in which the plaintiff, a passenger in defendant McMahon's vehicle, was injured when McMahon swerved off the road to avoid two stopped cars ahead. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for the plaintiff against both McMahon and the driver who had parked first (Porter), and both defendants appealed. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed, holding that the evidence supported a finding of gross negligence by McMahon for failing to brake or control his speed despite clear signals from the car ahead. It also held that Porter violated a statute by parking on the paved roadway within 150 feet of a curve and that his negligence was a continuing proximate cause of the collision. The court rejected the defendants' motions for directed verdicts, finding sufficient evidence to submit the issues of negligence and causation to the jury.

torts & liability