Wemyss v. Viens

Supreme Court of Vermont

Wemyss v. Viens

211 A.2d 238, 125 Vt. 81, 1965 Vt. LEXIS 201

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedMay 6, 1965

Docket983

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 211 A.2d 238 (Wemyss v. Viens) 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

Wemyss v. Viens, 211 A.2d 238, 125 Vt. 81, 1965 Vt. LEXIS 201 (Vt. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Through no fault of the defendants, a transcript of the trial testimony in this case is unobtainable. This did not come to light until after a notice of appeal had been filed and an order for the transcript placed, all within season, in February, 1963. Diligent and protracted searches have failed to turn up the original stenographic notes taken at the trial.

After it became apparent that the testimonial record was irretrievably lost, the defendants filed a motion asking that the matter be retried on the grounds that they have been deprived of their exceptions. This motion was filed on April 2, 1965, and was opposed by the plaintiff on the grounds that the statutory provisions, 12 V. S. A. §§ 2354-8, governing new trials, apply here. These sections require that the proceedings be commenced by petition, with a citation, served like a writ of summons, and be brought within two years after the rendition of the original judgment.

If there were any doubt, the specification of a two-year limitation after the rendition of judgment demonstrates that these statutes apply to a different situation. In qualifying cases, these sections provide a *82 remedy outside the regular appellate route, even though the judgment in the matter has, in all ordinary senses, become final.

This case has never been finally disposed of. The appeal is still pending, since a notice of appeal was timely filed and the record on appeal is still incomplete. 12 V.S.A. § 2387; Supreme Court Rule 4A. Were this the fault of the appealing party, he would be. in a poor position to request discretionary relief from this Court. This is not the situation of these appellants, since they are not to blame for the difficulty obstructing the hearing of the appeal. Since it sufficiently appears that the lack of a transcript prevents a just review of the questions to be raised on appeal, a new trial will be granted. Reynolds v. Romano, 96 Vt. 222, 224, 118 Atl. 810.

Judgment set aside and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

Per Curiam.

Through no fault of the defendants, a transcript of the trial testimony in this case is unobtainable. This did not come to light until after a notice of appeal had been filed and an order for the transcript placed, all within season, in February, 1963. Diligent and protracted searches have failed to turn up the original stenographic notes taken at the trial.

After it became apparent that the testimonial record was irretrievably lost, the defendants filed a motion asking that the matter be retried on the grounds that they have been deprived of their exceptions. This motion was filed on April 2, 1965, and was opposed by the plaintiff on the grounds that the statutory provisions, 12 V. S. A. §§ 2354-8, governing new trials, apply here. These sections require that the proceedings be commenced by petition, with a citation, served like a writ of summons, and be brought within two years after the rendition of the original judgment.

If there were any doubt, the specification of a two-year limitation after the rendition of judgment demonstrates that these statutes apply to a different situation. In qualifying cases, these sections provide a *82 remedy outside the regular appellate route, even though the judgment in the matter has, in all ordinary senses, become final.

This case has never been finally disposed of. The appeal is still pending, since a notice of appeal was timely filed and the record on appeal is still incomplete. 12 V.S.A. § 2387; Supreme Court Rule 4A. Were this the fault of the appealing party, he would be. in a poor position to request discretionary relief from this Court. This is not the situation of these appellants, since they are not to blame for the difficulty obstructing the hearing of the appeal. Since it sufficiently appears that the lack of a transcript prevents a just review of the questions to be raised on appeal, a new trial will be granted. Reynolds v. Romano, 96 Vt. 222, 224, 118 Atl. 810.

Judgment set aside and cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.2d 238, 125 Vt. 81, 1965 Vt. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wemyss-v-viens-vt-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack