Abbie Babcock v. Elizabeth Carter

• Decision Date: 18 May 1929
• Parties: ABBIE BABCOCK ET AL. v. ELIZABETH CARTER ET AL
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

146 A. 250

102 Vt. 137

ABBIE BABCOCK ET AL. v. ELIZABETH CARTER ET AL

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 18, 1929

February Term, 1929.

Question Raised by Exception to Judgment.

1. Exception to judgment only, no ground therefor being stated, does not reach evidence, but merely raises question whether findings support judgment.

2. Where plaintiffs took no exception to charge as given, but excepted to judgment only, charge being proper one from their standpoint, judgment involved no question of law not covered by it.

ACTION OF TROVER for alleged conversion of certain personal property. Plea, general issue. Trial by jury in Caledonia County municipal court, Harry Blodgett, Municipal Judge, presiding Verdict for defendants, and judgment thereon. The plaintiffs excepted. The opinion states the case. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Sumner E. Darling, Jr., for the plaintiffs.

Melvin G. Morse (George O. Hanford, of counsel), for the defendants.

Present: WATSON, C. J., POWERS, SLACK, MOULTON, and WILLCOX, JJ.

OPINION

WATSON

This is an action of trover for the alleged conversion of a paisley shawl; was tried by jury before the Caledonia County municipal court; verdict for defendants. At the close of the charge counsel for plaintiffs stated that he had no exception to the charge as given. Judgment was rendered on the verdict for defendants, to which judgment plaintiffs excepted. This is the only exception relied upon here by the plaintiffs. In their brief plaintiffs say that the ground of this exception is that the facts and law do not support the judgment rendered.

In taking the exception no ground therefor was stated and the exception to the judgment did not reach the evidence; it merely raised the question whether the findings supported the judgment. Morgan v. Gould, 96 Vt. 275, 119 A. 517; Crosby's Admrs. v. Naatz, 98 Vt. 226, 126 A. 547. The charge being a proper one from the standpoint of the plaintiffs, the judgment involved no question of law not covered by it.