State v. Hover

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Hover

58 Vt. 496

Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided February 15, 1886·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Takt, J.

The information is defective in not alleging the name of the person from whom the respondent solicited or [498] received the risk or application for insurance. It is like a complaint charging an assault without naming the person assaulted, or an adultery, without naming the particeps criminis. The respondent should know what act he is called upon to defend; the rules of good pleading require that it should be stated in the information. There is no occasion to pass upon any other question in the case. Exceptions and demurrer sustained. Information adjudged insufficient.

Judgment reversed and respondent discharged.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Takt, J.

The information is defective in not alleging the name of the person from whom the respondent solicited or [498] received the risk or application for insurance. It is like a complaint charging an assault without naming the person assaulted, or an adultery, without naming the particeps criminis. The respondent should know what act he is called upon to defend; the rules of good pleading require that it should be stated in the information. There is no occasion to pass upon any other question in the case. Exceptions and demurrer sustained. Information adjudged insufficient.

Judgment reversed and respondent discharged.

State v. Hover, 58 Vt. 496 (Vt. 1886).

Pincite

58 Vt. 496 (State v. Hover) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related