Sherman R. Moulton

This case involved a plaintiff's attempt to collect on a witnessed promissory note from 1936, secured by a chattel mortgage on livestock and hay, from the estate of the deceased maker who died in 1942. The estate's commissioners disallowed the claim, leading to a jury trial where the defendant pleaded payment and obtained a verdict after the court admitted evidence of demands for payment and a later mortgage discharge executed as an accommodation. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that execution and delivery of the note were factual issues for their determination when the evidence of those elements was uncontradicted, and that the charge improperly shifted the burden of proof on payment. The court also addressed the admissibility of evidence regarding the decedent's insolvency and financial condition as relevant to the improbability of payment, but found no abuse of discretion in allowing rebuttal evidence after the plaintiff rested.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the unpaid balance for skim milk and cream sold and delivered by the plaintiff cooperative to the defendant company between April and August 1945. The trial court awarded the plaintiff a reduced judgment of $529.67 plus interest, accepting the defendant's claimed lower prices based on a misunderstanding and allowing certain credits. On appeal, the court held that the attorneys' post-suit letters constituted a binding stipulation fixing the price at the Milk Market Administrator's Boston-area rates plus hauling, eliminating a disputed credit of $3,863.08, and supported by uncontradicted testimony on the correct prices. It reversed the judgment and entered one for the plaintiff in the full claimed amount of $2,249.99 plus interest from September 30, 1945.

business & regulatory

The case involved dairy farm owners suing their former farm manager for damages caused by his alleged negligent care and feeding of the cattle, which introduced mastitis to the herd. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed, claiming error in the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on contributory negligence. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant's request sought only an abstract statement of contributory negligence law without any application to the case facts. Such abstract instructions are improper because they risk confusing rather than clarifying the issues for the jury. The defendant had expressly disclaimed any need for an instruction tailored to the evidence presented.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves adjoining property owners in a Vermont village disputing a claimed right of way over a driveway space between their buildings on Main Street, where the plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the defendant from obstructing access based on alleged long-term use by themselves, predecessors, tenants, and the public. After a hearing, the chancellor made findings that the evidence of use on the defendant's portion of the land was too uncertain and indefinite to establish open, continuous, adverse, and claim-of-right use for fifteen years, while the defendant had used his property adversely since acquiring it in 1927. The court affirmed the decree denying relief, holding that no easement was created or preserved and that the plaintiffs' requested findings on prior acquiescence or consent were unsupported by the facts found. Exceptions to findings, refusals to find, and the decree itself were overruled as no reversible error appeared.

property

This case involved a 1945 car accident in Vermont where the plaintiff's intestate, riding as a guest passenger, was injured when the defendant's vehicle skidded off a sharp curve on a highway and plunged down a bank toward the Castleton River after the defendant drove at 40-45 mph. The defendant moved for a directed verdict and to set aside the jury's verdict for the plaintiff, arguing lack of gross negligence under the applicable guest statute and that the passenger was contributorily negligent or assumed the risk due to the defendant's prior drinking. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence of speed on a familiar road with hazardous features, extensive skid marks, and damage to obstacles was sufficient for the jury to find gross negligence, while no conclusive proof showed the passenger was aware of intoxication or obvious danger.

torts & liability

In Cenate v. Hunter, the plaintiff sued after his horse-drawn vehicle collided with the defendant's motor truck, seeking damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost earnings, and property loss. The jury awarded $376, but the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict as grossly inadequate and contrary to the court's instructions on damages; the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court held that the verdict could not stand because it failed to include any compensation for the plaintiff's undisputed pain and suffering from his head injury and cracked ribs during at least the six-week healing period, despite evidence supporting that element and instructions requiring the jury to consider it. The ruling turned on the distinction that motions based on disregard of jury instructions are reviewable without deference to the trial court's discretion, unlike pure inadequacy claims, leading to reversal of the denial and denial of the defendant's later motion for re-argument.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a boundary dispute between owners of adjoining parcels of land in Stamford, Vermont. The parties entered into a written agreement to settle pending litigation by having a surveyor establish boundaries so that the defendants would receive exactly fifty acres, after which each would quitclaim the appropriate portions to the other. When the defendants refused to execute the deed following the survey, the plaintiffs sought specific performance in equity. The chancellor granted the decree after finding no mutual mistake or other grounds for rescission, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the findings and that there was no abuse of discretion in ordering enforcement of the agreement.

property

The case involved a New Hampshire corporation that sought a Vermont license as a wholesale cigarette dealer and the right to purchase tax stamps in order to sell cigarettes to retailers in the state via interstate shipments, but the Commissioner of Taxes denied the license for lack of a certificate of authority to do business in Vermont. The corporation appealed to the County Court, claiming the denial interfered with interstate commerce and seeking a declaration of its rights. The court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal on demurrer, ruling that the County Court lacked jurisdiction because the governing statute required a prior written application for a hearing before the Commissioner under section 16, followed by his decision, as a prerequisite to any appeal under section 17. The opinion construed the appeal provisions to establish a uniform review process and found the petition deficient for failing to allege compliance with those steps, while expressing no view on the merits of the constitutional claim.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a boundary dispute between adjoining landowners who derived title from a common grantor, with plaintiffs seeking a declaratory judgment to establish the dividing line between their properties. A jury returned a special verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, and judgment was entered accordingly. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that testimony from a surviving party to the original deed was inadmissible under the dead man's statute (P.L. 1694) because it concerned the contract in issue, and that prior recorded testimony from a deceased witness should have been admitted to contradict it. The court also addressed but found no reversible error in the jury instructions regarding the binding effect of predecessors' acts and the treatment of a leased boundary as a monument. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death action brought by the administratrix of a man struck and killed by the defendant's car while he was signaling traffic around a disabled vehicle on a Vermont highway at night. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed, arguing that the deceased was contributorily negligent as a matter of law and that his own conduct did not qualify as willful and malicious under the statute allowing for certified execution. The court held that the issue of contributory negligence was properly left to the jury because the evidence did not conclusively show the deceased lacked due care or assumed the risk, as he was attempting to warn others while positioned in the headlights of the disabled car. On the certified execution, the court affirmed based on evidence that the defendant, after being blinded by oncoming lights, intentionally maintained his speed without reducing it or stopping as required by law, which supported a finding of willful and malicious conduct under the applicable standard. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.

torts & liability

This case involved a dispute over a 1938 contract for the sale of a Vermont farm, where the buyer paid a $420 down payment for property described as approximately 275 acres, but the sellers later conveyed it as containing 200 acres more or less and refused to return the deposit after the buyer rescinded. The buyer sued to recover the down payment, alleging mutual mistake regarding the acreage that prevented a meeting of the minds, while the sellers argued it was a sale in gross based on inspection of the specific tract. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, but the appellate court held that the case should have gone to the jury, reasoning that evidence of the acreage discrepancy and the sellers' later deed could support a finding of mutual mistake allowing rescission, despite the contract's inspection clause and lack of fraud. The court rejected arguments that the evidence required conjecture or that the inspection clause barred reliance on the acreage representation in a mistake claim.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a petition by Central Vermont Public Service Corporation for a writ of prohibition to prevent a superior judge from ordering the deposition of its vice president and production of records under P.L. 1737, which authorizes perpetuation of testimony. The underlying dispute was a tort action by the City of Rutland alleging negligence in the maintenance of dams that caused flood damage. The court held that the judge lacked jurisdiction because the statute, strictly construed, applies only when testimony is at risk of being lost and cannot be used for pretrial discovery when the witness is available and resides locally with no indication that evidence will become unavailable. The core reasoning emphasized that the statute derives from equitable principles for preserving evidence in danger of loss, not for aiding preparation of a pending case where the witness and records can be produced at trial.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is a contract action brought by the executor of Colby’s estate against defendants Francis and Harriet Poor, alleging that the couple received a check for $3,485 to pay off their farm mortgage on the understanding they would execute a replacement note and mortgage, which they never did. The trial court found as fact that Colby intended the funds as an immediate gift to Francis, with no agreement for repayment or security, and excluded a handwritten notation from Colby’s papers as inadmissible. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendants, holding that the evidence supported the gift finding and that the trial court properly assessed credibility and weight of testimony.

property

This case concerned a workers' compensation claim by an employee injured on the job at a lumber company, who sought benefits for fifty-three weeks of temporary total disability due to back pain and for one hundred thirty weeks of permanent partial disability. The employer and insurance carrier challenged the Commissioner's award, arguing that the evidence did not support the total disability finding and that the periods of incapacity were not continuous. The court affirmed the award, holding that the Commissioner's findings were supported by the evidence when viewed favorably and that total disability need not be consecutive or immediate under the statute. However, the court remanded for a specific determination of the date when temporary total disability ended, so that the start of permanent partial disability payments could be clearly set.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff's efforts to pursue claims against the estate of Delphise Langlois, first on a promissory note disallowed by probate commissioners and later on an alleged breach of warranty in a deed. After missing the deadline to appeal the note claim, the plaintiff petitioned the county court for leave to appeal due to alleged fraud, accident, or mistake, and sought to add the warranty claim via amendment and further evidence. The trial court granted the appeal on the note but denied the amendment and later application for additional evidence. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the amendment was filed too late to be considered part of the original petition, the record showed no reversible error by the trial court, and procedural requirements for timely presentation and appeals under the relevant statutes had not been met.

procedureproperty

The case involved the constitutionality under Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution of a statute allowing courts, prosecutors, and juries to comment on and draw adverse inferences from a criminal defendant's decision not to testify. The majority held that the statute did not violate the constitution, reasoning that the self-incrimination clause prohibits only physical compulsion to produce evidence. The dissent argued that the clause bars any compulsion, including moral compulsion created by permitting adverse comments on silence, which effectively pressures defendants to testify or face negative inferences, and that the statute therefore negates a core constitutional protection.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a trespass action in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant entered his land and cut down trees, initially seeking only single damages under common law without referencing the statute allowing treble damages. At trial, both parties proceeded as if treble damages under P.L. 8540 were at issue, with evidence and arguments presented accordingly, leading the jury to award actual damages and reject a mistake defense; the trial court then entered judgment for treble damages and later allowed an amendment to the declaration to explicitly claim them. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the parties' conduct at trial enlarged the issues beyond the pleadings and waived objections to their sufficiency, that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action since the statute merely enhanced damages for the existing trespass claim, and that the post-verdict amendment was within the trial court's discretion. The court also upheld the use of separate verdicts for actual damages and the mistake issue.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a petition by the Town of Springfield for a writ of prohibition to prevent County Road Commissioners from ordering the town to repair a bridge and enforcing that order if the town failed to comply. The town argued that the bridge was not a public highway because it had never been laid out by statute or properly dedicated and accepted as such, depriving the commissioners of jurisdiction. The court found that while the bridge may have been used and repaired over time, there was no record of statutory authorization or written, recorded approval from the selectmen for the road commissioner to perform repairs, which was required by statute for bridges of that size. As a result, the acts of repair did not establish acceptance of the bridge as a public highway, and the commissioners lacked jurisdiction to issue or enforce the repair order. The court therefore granted the writ of prohibition.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned an action brought in Vermont to enforce a New York judgment for alimony arrears against a defendant who had moved to Vermont after the original divorce decree. The Vermont trial court ruled for the defendant, concluding that the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction because service of the order to show cause had been made only by registered mail rather than personal delivery. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that service by registered mail was authorized and sufficient under New York Civil Practice Act § 1171(b), that a minor clerical error in the mailed copy was immaterial and did not mislead the defendant, and that jurisdiction of the rendering court is presumed in an action on a foreign judgment unless the contrary is shown. The court therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff and remanded for assessment of damages.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over the partition of real estate between two equal tenants in common who both wish to be assigned the property after commissioners determined it could not be divided without great inconvenience and set an equitable price of $4000 for a half interest. The County Court assigned the property to the plaintiff after considering evidence on the parties' claims. The dissenting opinion argues that under the relevant statutes, the court has discretion to select one party as assignee when both are willing, rather than ordering a sale, because the statute authorizing sale only applies when no party accepts the assignment. The core reasoning is that the permissive language in the assignment statute, read with the restrictive sale provision, intends for the court to decide in such situations to avoid leaving the property undivided, and no abuse of discretion was shown.

propertyprocedure