Woolcott v. Gray

Supreme Court of Vermont

Woolcott v. Gray

1 Brayt. 91

Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided July 1, 1819·No. No. 18·Published

Opinion

The Court decided — That the officer ought to have been permitted to impeach the note, and that the evidence hp offered for that purpose, ought to have been admitted.

2. That the evideuce offered in mitigation of damages ought also to have been admitted.

Judgment. That there is error.

See Assumpsit 4. Bail 1, 2. Ejectment 2, 3. Commission. Fraud. Highways 2, 3. Landlord and Tenant 2, Patent flight. Pauper Cases 2, 3, 9. Judgment 2.

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

The Court decided — That the officer ought to have been permitted to impeach the note, and that the evidence hp offered for that purpose, ought to have been admitted.

2. That the evideuce offered in mitigation of damages ought also to have been admitted.

Judgment. That there is error.

See Assumpsit 4. Bail 1, 2. Ejectment 2, 3. Commission. Fraud. Highways 2, 3. Landlord and Tenant 2, Patent flight. Pauper Cases 2, 3, 9. Judgment 2.

Woolcott v. Gray, 1 Brayt. 91 (Vt. 1819).

Pincite

1 Brayt. 91 (Woolcott v. Gray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.