Yale v. Saunders

16 Vt. 243
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedJanuary 15, 1844
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 16 Vt. 243 (Yale v. Saunders) 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
Yale v. Saunders, 16 Vt. 243 (Vt. 1844).

Opinion

'The opinion of the court was delivered by

Williams, Ch. J.

This case comes before us on exceptions by the plaintiff to the charge of the court. We have not thought it ¡necessary ,to say any thing as to the first point made, that is, whether [246]*246the court charged correctly on the subject of conversion. The jury have found that there was a conversion; — whether, therefore, the court were correct or incorrect in the doctrine laid down on that subject, the jury have found that fact; and this was all the plaintiff could have expected, if the charge had been as he requested.

The jury probably found that the goods sued for were returned before action brought. The return of the goods stands in the place of paying for their value, and is to be considered in mitigation of damages. Indeed courts may, on motion of the defendant, order a return of goods in some cases, against the wishes of the plaintiff, and such return will reduce the damages to those actually sustained in consequence of the wrongful taking. This was decided at the last term of this court (see ante p. 138,) in Chittenden county. In relation to John Saunders, the charge to the jury appears to have been substantially correct, and the case properly left to them. Whether they understood John Saunders as participating with his father can only be learned from their verdict; and with their views bf the testimony, and the importance attached to any particular part, we have nothing to do.

The judgment of the county court is therefore affirmed.

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

Related

Pantz v. Nelson
135 S.W.2d 397 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1939)
Hutchison Grocery Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
230 Ill. App. 291 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1923)
Lyman v. James
89 A. 932 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1914)
Whittler v. Sharp
135 P. 112 (Utah Supreme Court, 1913)
Taugher v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
129 N.W. 747 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1910)
German American Bank v. Brunswig
81 S.W. 461 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Phelps, Dodge and Palmer Co. v. Halsell and Frazier
1901 OK 25 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1901)
Field v. Munster
32 S.W. 417 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1895)
Nash v. Minnesota Title Insurance & Trust Co.
28 L.R.A. 753 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Stillwell v. Farewell
64 Vt. 286 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1891)
Gilbert & Miller v. Peck
43 Mo. App. 577 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
McClellan v. Wyatt
11 N.Y.S. 686 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1890)
Ward v. Moffett
38 Mo. App. 395 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
Walsh v. Sichler
20 Mo. App. 374 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Montpelier & Wells River Railroad v. Coffrin
52 Vt. 17 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1879)
Colby v. Reed
99 U.S. 560 (Supreme Court, 1879)
Loeffler v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co.
7 Mo. App. 185 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1879)
Northern Transportation Co. v. Sellick
52 Ill. 249 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1869)
Hanson v. Herrick
100 Mass. 323 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1868)
Tinker v. Morrill
39 Vt. 477 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Vt. 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yale-v-saunders-vt-1844.