Franks v. Lockey

45 Vt. 395
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided February 15, 1873·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered-by

Peck, J.

The only question is whether the county court, upon - the facts stated, legally had the power to vacate the judgment as to the defendant Lockey on his petition, and bring the case forward for trial as to him. We think the court had such power. It is objected by the plaintiff that if the county court had such power, the proceeding was irregular in this, that if the judgment was vacated as to the defendant Lockey, it should have been vacated also as to the defendant Thurston. No such question is presented by the exceptions, as it does not appear that either the plaintiff Franks, or the defendant Thurston, asked to have the judgment vacated as to Thurston, if vacated as to Lockey. The cause for vacating the judgment did not extend to Thurston.

Exceptions overruled and judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Franks v. Lockey, 45 Vt. 395 (Vt. 1873).

45 Vt. 395 (Franks v. Lockey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thompson v. Morrison
79 A. 1002 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1911)
Howard v. Village of West Randolph
72 A. 1076 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1909)
Wright v. Simpson
65 N.E. 628 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Sanford v. White
108 F. 928 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1901)
In Re College Street
11 R.I. 472 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1877)