White v. Thorp

Supreme Court of Vermont

White v. Thorp

104 A. 9, 92 Vt. 388, 1918 Vt. LEXIS 188

DecidedMay 29, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A. 9 (White v. Thorp) 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

White v. Thorp, 104 A. 9, 92 Vt. 388, 1918 Vt. LEXIS 188 (Vt. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion heard is to dismiss an appeal in chancery. The decree was rendered on May 22, 1917, and filed two days later. Thereby a certain sum of money .was ordered, adjudged, and decreed to be paid by defendant Thorp tó the plaintiff. No appeal was taken therefrom. On July 30, 1917, the chancellor, on petition of the plaintiff, ordered that execution issue against the chattels and lands of defendant Thorp, and for want thereof against his body, for the amount due the plaintiff under the decree, according to the prayer of said petition. The order was filed August 6, 1917, and on the same day a motion was filed by Thorp, praying “for an appeal from the order and decree * * * granting an execution against him in said cause."

The plaintiff moves that the appeal be dismissed, for that the order from which it was taken is not a final decree. The motion must be sustained. The order that execution issue was not a decree. It was made under the statute as a method of enforcing the performance of the decree previously rendered. P. S. 1302. See Kopper v. Dyer, 59 Vt. 477, 9 Atl. 4, 59 Am. Rep. 742; Vilas v. Burton, 27 Vt. 56.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The motion heard is to dismiss an appeal in chancery. The decree was rendered on May 22, 1917, and filed two days later. Thereby a certain sum of money .was ordered, adjudged, and decreed to be paid by defendant Thorp tó the plaintiff. No appeal was taken therefrom. On July 30, 1917, the chancellor, on petition of the plaintiff, ordered that execution issue against the chattels and lands of defendant Thorp, and for want thereof against his body, for the amount due the plaintiff under the decree, according to the prayer of said petition. The order was filed August 6, 1917, and on the same day a motion was filed by Thorp, praying “for an appeal from the order and decree * * * granting an execution against him in said cause."

The plaintiff moves that the appeal be dismissed, for that the order from which it was taken is not a final decree. The motion must be sustained. The order that execution issue was not a decree. It was made under the statute as a method of enforcing the performance of the decree previously rendered. P. S. 1302. See Kopper v. Dyer, 59 Vt. 477, 9 Atl. 4, 59 Am. Rep. 742; Vilas v. Burton, 27 Vt. 56.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A. 9, 92 Vt. 388, 1918 Vt. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-thorp-vt-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack