State v. Wersebe
This text of 183 A. 490 (State v. Wersebe) 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.
Opinion
This case was originally brought to this Court upon exceptions. At the November Term, 1935, these exceptions were overruled. The case is now here upon a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking to take advantage of certain exceptions taken in the trial below, which the respondent failed to bring upon the record when the case was formerly here. See 107 Vt. 529, 181 Atl. 299.
As a general proposition, certiorari will not issue when there is another adequate remedy. It is generally held that it will not issue where there is an adequate remedy by appeal or exceptions. Sowles v. Bailey, 69 Vt. 277, 284, 37 Atl. 751; *157 Connors v. Ball, 73 Vt. 182, 50 Atl. 804; Stevens v. Hill et als., 74 Vt. 164, 52 Atl. 437.
Here there was a plain, adequate and expeditious remedy by a bill of exceptions of which the petitioner availed himself. Under the circumstances of this case, we do not think that the failure of petitioner’s attorney properly to prepare the bill of exceptions, so as to bring upon the record the exceptions taken at the trial, affords a sufficient reason to take this case out of the general rule.
Petition denied. Stay vacated.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
183 A. 490, 108 Vt. 156, 1936 Vt. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wersebe-vt-1936.