Morgan v. Houston

25 Vt. 570
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedMay 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 25 Vt. 570 (Morgan v. Houston) 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
Morgan v. Houston, 25 Vt. 570 (Vt. 1853).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, Ch. J.

This is a petition for a new trial, on the-ground of surprise, at the trial, and newly discovered evidence.

1. One ground of surprise, on the part of the petitioners, is that the County Court ruled the law different from what they expected,, and that ruling was affirmed, in this court. This could never form the basis of a petition for a new trial. This is a surprise that overtakes every body concerned in the administration of civil justice, every day of his life. Human opinion is infinitely various, and always will be.

If a party supposes it possible, that evidence exists, which will [572]*572enable liim to avoid the effect of a decision, against him, he should obtain a delay and search for the evidence. But if instead of doing that, he ventures to rely upon his exceptions, and fail there, or if he move for continuance, which the court refuse, it could not fail to be of evil example to grant relief, by petition for new trial. In one case, it would encourage rash experiment, and in the other, would be virtually granting a new trial, because the court unreasonably refused a delay of the trial. This seems to cover all, which is alleged, as surprise.

2. The newly discovered evidence being the record of the allowance of the committee’s account, was all of record, in this court, and might have been found, upon reasonable search, in the proper place, and at the proper time, which seems not to have been done. To grant a new trial, on that account, would be to relieve the party, from the consequences of his own neglect.

There does not seem to be any just ground, for granting this petition, and it is dismissed with costs.

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

Related

Bardwell v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.
163 A. 633 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1933)
State v. Hathorn
138 A. 738 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1927)
State v. Maguire
138 A. 741 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1927)
MacDonald, B.N.F. v. Orton
134 A. 599 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1926)
National Fireproofing Co. v. Kelley
148 N.E. 805 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Barrows v. Wilson
121 A. 440 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1923)
Webb v. State
96 A. 599 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1916)
Roberts v. W. H. Hughes Co.
83 A. 807 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1912)
Allen v. Chambers
51 P. 478 (Washington Supreme Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Vt. 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-houston-vt-1853.