Mattocks v. Lyman

18 Vt. 98
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedJanuary 15, 1846
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 18 Vt. 98 (Mattocks v. Lyman) 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
Mattocks v. Lyman, 18 Vt. 98 (Vt. 1846).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, J.

1. In regard to the right of the plaintiff to recover in this action upon the general counts and the necessity of a demand nothing more need be said, than was said in this case, as reported in 16 Vt. Reports 113.

2. We do not perceive that any improper use was made of the defendants’ books in the course of the trial. They could not be received as evidence in regard to the plaintiff’s claim, if they contained nothing concerning any such account. A party’s books are never evidence of a negative character, to rebut a presumption, — or certainly not ordinarily, — but only in regard to matters which. d!o> positively appear upon them, either of debt, or credit. And certainly, if the books were admitted in support of the defendant’s-counter claim, it was competent for the plaintiff to show, by the-same books, the payment, or settlement, of that claim.

3. In regard to the admissions of the defendants, the judge, wha tried the case, certainly put the matter upon the same ground, on which such admissions have always been received, since I have known any thing of the course of jury trials in this State, and upon [104]*104the sarne"ground that it is put in the English practice, — that is, that the whole declaration of the party, made at one time, as well that in his favor, as that which is against him, must be received and weighed ; but the jury are at liberty to believe one portion and disbelieve the other, as they are all evidence. This undoubtedly puts it in the power of a jury to do great injustice, as it is always in their power to do, — and hence the great responsibility, which rests upon jurors, and upon the judge, often, who presides at such trials, — but such matters cannot be revised in this court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Dunkley
39 P.2d 1097 (Utah Supreme Court, 1935)
Hendrickson v. International Harvester Co. of America
135 A. 702 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1927)
Wellman, Admr. v. Wales
122 A. 659 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1923)
Lewis v. McNeal
207 P. 1021 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
L. J. Brosius & Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Noble
1916 OK 680 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Thomas v. Mott
88 S.E. 651 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1916)
State v. Bean
60 A. 807 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1905)
Scott v. Bailey
50 A. 557 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1901)
Wright v. Williams's Estate
47 Vt. 222 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1874)
Leighton v. Sargent
31 N.H. 119 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1855)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Vt. 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattocks-v-lyman-vt-1846.