Muir v. Hodges

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont

Muir v. Hodges

116 F. 912, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5052

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont

DecidedJuly 25, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 116 F. 912 (Muir v. Hodges) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Muir v. Hodges, 116 F. 912, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5052 (circtdvt 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

This is a creditors’ bill, showing a judgment in this court against the defendant Maria for $2,000 damages and $27.03 costs, with a return of no goods to be found on the execution, and the receipt of the use of her dower, and her share in the personal estate of her husband by the defendants E. H. and E. W. Hodges, and has been heard on demurrer; the principal ground of which is the uncertain description of property to be reached. Her share of the rents and profits of the lands in which she has had the right of dower unassigned would be liable for her debts, and reachable in their hands (Holmes v. Bridgman, 37 Vt. 28); and her distributive share of her husband’s estate, alleged to' have gone into and to have remained in their hands, seems to be well enough described to require answer. They will probably understand what is meant.

Demurrer overruled; defendants to answer over by August 19th.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

This is a creditors’ bill, showing a judgment in this court against the defendant Maria for $2,000 damages and $27.03 costs, with a return of no goods to be found on the execution, and the receipt of the use of her dower, and her share in the personal estate of her husband by the defendants E. H. and E. W. Hodges, and has been heard on demurrer; the principal ground of which is the uncertain description of property to be reached. Her share of the rents and profits of the lands in which she has had the right of dower unassigned would be liable for her debts, and reachable in their hands (Holmes v. Bridgman, 37 Vt. 28); and her distributive share of her husband’s estate, alleged to' have gone into and to have remained in their hands, seems to be well enough described to require answer. They will probably understand what is meant.

Demurrer overruled; defendants to answer over by August 19th.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 F. 912, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muir-v-hodges-circtdvt-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack