Lee v. Springer & Utton

Supreme Court of Vermont

Lee v. Springer & Utton

50 A. 809, 73 Vt. 183, 1901 Vt. LEXIS 149

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedMarch 19, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A. 809 (Lee v. Springer & Utton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. Springer & Utton, 50 A. 809, 73 Vt. 183, 1901 Vt. LEXIS 149 (Vt. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Start, J.

The action is trespass. It appears that.there was testimony tending to show that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff at a mill and at a barn some twelve rods from the mill. The court instructed the jury, that, if the affray at the barn was separate and distinct from the occurence at the mill, the plaintiff could not recover for what occurred at the barn. The declaration contains two counts. Under it, a recovery could- be had for either or both of the claimed assaults, notwithstanding they were distinct. Each constituted a separate ground of recovery, but it was not necessary to bring an action for each assault. Several distinct trespasses may be joined in the same action. Encyclopaedia of Pleading and Practice, vol. 1, 164, 169. It was, therefore, error to make the right of recovery for the assault at the barn dependent upon its connection with the affray at the mill. As this holding reverses the judgment, no other questions are considered.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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

Start, J.

The action is trespass. It appears that.there was testimony tending to show that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff at a mill and at a barn some twelve rods from the mill. The court instructed the jury, that, if the affray at the barn was separate and distinct from the occurence at the mill, the plaintiff could not recover for what occurred at the barn. The declaration contains two counts. Under it, a recovery could- be had for either or both of the claimed assaults, notwithstanding they were distinct. Each constituted a separate ground of recovery, but it was not necessary to bring an action for each assault. Several distinct trespasses may be joined in the same action. Encyclopaedia of Pleading and Practice, vol. 1, 164, 169. It was, therefore, error to make the right of recovery for the assault at the barn dependent upon its connection with the affray at the mill. As this holding reverses the judgment, no other questions are considered.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A. 809, 73 Vt. 183, 1901 Vt. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-springer-utton-vt-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack