Sherman v. Blodgett
28 Vt. 149
Opinion
We have no doubt the evidence objected to was properly admitted.
The solvency of an individual is a matter resting somewhat in opinion ; and, in the present case, the witness had stated what property the bail owned at the time he entered bail, and his means of knowing the situation and circumstances of the bail; certainly there could then be no objection to his giving his opinion from his knowledge of the bail, and of his affairs, what he thought he was worth.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sherman v. Blodgett, 28 Vt. 149 (Vt. 1855).
28 Vt. 149 (Sherman v. Blodgett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lacy v. County of Kossuth
75 N.W. 689 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)
Houston v. Maddux
73 Ill. App. 203 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)
First National Bank v. Dickson
40 N.W. 351 (Supreme Court of Dakota, 1888)
Larkin v. Hapgood
56 Vt. 597 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1884)