Putnam v. Lawrence

Supreme Court of Vermont

Putnam v. Lawrence

50 Vt. 66

DecidedAugust 15, 1877

StatusPublished

This text of 50 Vt. 66 (Putnam v. Lawrence) 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

Putnam v. Lawrence, 50 Vt. 66 (Vt. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Barrett, J.

This cause stands upon a motion to dismiss a petition for a new trial. The petition was served on Lawrence on [67]*67the 22d day of November 1876. Putnam had brought a like petition for the same cause, which was dismissed at the General Term of the Supreme Court, which adjourned on the 23d day of November, 1876. The motion to dismiss in the present case is sustained on the second ground assigned in the motion. It falls within the views expressed in Mann v. Fairlee, 44 Vt. 678, and in Shepard v. Hayes, 16 Vt. 486. We think those views sound in principle and salutary in application. Though in this case the concurrent pendency of the two petitions was brief, still, according to the calendar, both secular and legal, the later petition was pending for a day while the other was still pending. That fact is fatal to the latter.

The petition is dismissed with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Barrett, J.

This cause stands upon a motion to dismiss a petition for a new trial. The petition was served on Lawrence on [67]*67the 22d day of November 1876. Putnam had brought a like petition for the same cause, which was dismissed at the General Term of the Supreme Court, which adjourned on the 23d day of November, 1876. The motion to dismiss in the present case is sustained on the second ground assigned in the motion. It falls within the views expressed in Mann v. Fairlee, 44 Vt. 678, and in Shepard v. Hayes, 16 Vt. 486. We think those views sound in principle and salutary in application. Though in this case the concurrent pendency of the two petitions was brief, still, according to the calendar, both secular and legal, the later petition was pending for a day while the other was still pending. That fact is fatal to the latter.

The petition is dismissed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Vt. 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-v-lawrence-vt-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack