This case involved a criminal complaint against three selectmen of Mt. Holly for allegedly violating V.S. 3661 by failing to require the town treasurer to post bonds to the town and school district before she took office, as required by V.S. 3533. The respondents demurred, arguing the duty applied only to the selectmen as a board rather than to them individually and that no willful neglect was alleged. The court held that the statute imposes the bond-approval duties on the selectmen collectively as a board, so no individual selectman could be prosecuted under V.S. 3661 for ordinary neglect of that duty; because the complaint lacked any allegation of willful neglect and charged no cognizable crime, it was insufficient as a matter of law. The judgment overruling the demurrers was reversed, the complaint was dismissed, and the respondents were discharged.
This case is an appeal by Citizens Utilities Company from a Vermont Public Service Commission order that rejected the company's proposed increases in electric rates as unjust and unreasonable, determined a rate base, found that a 6% return on that base was just and reasonable, and substituted new rate schedules to produce the required income. The commission's order was challenged on the ground that the 6% return finding lacked evidentiary support. The court concluded that the company's exception was adequate to raise the issue and that no substantial evidence in the record supported the 6% return, requiring reversal of the order and remand for a de novo hearing. The court reasoned that commission rate findings must rest on substantial evidence rather than presumption alone and that judicial review requires disclosure of the method used to reach a fair return.
This case concerned the distribution of accrued income from a $10,000 trust fund following the death of beneficiary Annie E. Burrows, with the probate court awarding $3,726.29 in income to her estate's administrator and heirs while directing the principal to other heirs. Trustee Clark moved to amend the decree to separate pre- and post-death income amounts, but after the motion was denied, he appealed both the amendment ruling and the underlying decree to county court outside the statutory 20-day window. The county court denied a motion to dismiss the appeal, but the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, ruling that appeals from probate orders must strictly comply with statutory timing requirements to confer jurisdiction. Because the appeal from the decree was untimely and the amendment denial caused no material harm, the court dismissed the appeal entirely.
This case involved a petition under Vermont statute to revise and reduce an existing alimony decree on the ground that the plaintiff could not afford the payments given his financial condition. The defendant demurred, arguing that the petition failed to allege any change in circumstances since the original divorce decree. The court held that the statute permitting revision "from time to time" requires a showing of changed conditions after the initial order, consistent with prior Vermont cases on related family matters and the universal rule in other jurisdictions. Because no such post-decree change was alleged, the petition was insufficient. The judgment overruling the demurrer was reversed and the case remanded.
This case arose from a collision in which the plaintiff's parked car was struck by the defendant's bus as she exited the vehicle, leading to her personal injury lawsuit. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed on grounds that the trial court improperly excluded testimony about the car's condition after the accident and denied her request for a recess to secure a rebuttal witness. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that further questions on the car's condition would merely repeat prior testimony and that any evidence of the examiner's conduct was inadmissible for corroboration. The court further held that the denial of the recess was within the trial court's discretion, as the record showed the witness would not have arrived within the requested time. The topics addressed include rules of evidence and trial management in a tort action.
This case involved a replevin action over ownership of a bull, where the plaintiff claimed he had only rented the animal to the defendant while the defendant claimed title had passed through a sale. A jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to set it aside. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the defendant bore the burden of proving the sale after the plaintiff made a prima facie case of possession. The court noted that evidence supported a possible sale even without an agreed price, as the buyer would owe a reasonable price under the Uniform Sales Act, but the missing jury instruction on burden of proof required reversal. The court also upheld the exclusion of a business record due to untimely entries.
