Canfield v. Hall, No. 173
| Docket Nº | No. 173 |
| Citation | 121 Vt. 52, 147 A.2d 886 |
| Case Date | January 06, 1959 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Page 886
v.
Frank HALL and Harriet Hall.
Page 887
[121 Vt. 53] Manfred W. Ehrich, Jr., Bennington, for plaintiffs.
Bloomer & Bloomer, Rutland, for defendants.
Before [121 Vt. 52] CLEARY, C. J., and ADAMS, HULBURD, HOLDEN and SHANGRAW, JJ.
[121 Vt. 53] CLEARY, Chief Justice.
This is a justice ejectment action appealed by the defendants to the Bennington County court. Before trial there the defendants moved to transfer the cause into Equity by the authority of V.S. 47 § 1619. The transfer was refused, the defendants allowed an exception and the cause passed to the Supreme Court before final judgment, pursuant to V.S. 47 § 2124. The only issue here is whether the court below committed harmful error in refusing to transfer the cause into the court of chancery.
The defendants' motion was accompanied by their bill of complaint as required by rule 12 of the county court rules.
The following facts are alleged in the defendants' bill of complaint. On May 14, 1941 James A. Canfield, the then owner of the property in question, leased the premises to the defendants for twenty years, with a right of renewal. In consideration thereof the defendants were to use the premises in a good and husbandlike manner and pay to James A. Campbell, or to his assigns, as rent, an annual sum equal to one percent of the total gross income of any and all business conducted on said premises, such sum to be not less than seventy dollars, payable on the first day of October, each year thereafter. The defendants also agreed to undertake all repairs at their own expense, to pay all taxes, and to carry and pay fire insurance [121 Vt. 54] on the property, taken out in the name of the lessor to the amount of not less than $1000. The defendants had the right at any time to alter, change or enlarge the buildings on the premises, or to build new buildings to suit their convenience at their own cost and expense. The defendants have always paid the rent or attempted to do so and have tried to carry out each and every term of the lease.
While James Canfield remained the lessor, he approved of various alterations and additions to the building and loaned the defendants money to make said alterations and repairs, which money has been paid back to James Canfield. The additions and alterations at that time made exceeded the loan by many dollars. With the knowledge, consent, acquiescense, and, at times, help of James Canfield, the defendants converted the building from a school house into a combination restaurant and dwelling. Relying upon the lease of James A. Canfield and his suggestions, help and cooperation in connection therewith, the defendants spent, to wit, $14,000 in betterments on said property.
Upon information and belief the defendants allege that some time, the date of which is unknown to the defendants, the said James Canfield assigned this lease over to the plaintiffs, but subject to the lease. The defendants further allege that they have no adequate remedy at law and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poulin v. Town of Danville, 2-68
...purpose of its consideration facts well pleaded and it is not aided by facts not appearing in the pleading demurred to. Canfield v. Hall, 121 Vt. 52, 54, 147 A.2d 886. The petition shows the following The land on the west shore of Joe's Pond is in the Town of Cabot and that on the east shor......
-
Woodard v. Porter Hospital, Inc., 78
...is in the nature of demurrer. Likewise, a demurrer is not aided by facts which do not appear in the pleading demurred to. Canfield v. Hall, 121 Vt. 52, 54, 147 A.2d 886. The admission in evidence of the exhibits in support of the motion to dismiss was unauthorized. Consideration of the moti......
-
State v. Wood, 965
...objections were to the State's Attorney's argument. These objections were sustained. Therefore the exceptions which the court allowed [121 Vt. 52] must be held to have been allowed to the State rather than to the respondent. Even if it could be assumed that the court intended to allow the e......
-
Appliance Acceptance Co. v. Stevens, 1317
...of review apply. Theirs is the responsibility of producing a record before this Court that substantiates their position. Canfield v. Hall, 121 Vt. 52, 56, 147 A.2d 886; Ricci v. Billings, 119 Vt. 453, 457, 128 A.2d 754; [121 Vt. 488] Bilodeau & Co. v. Reed, 119 Vt. 342, 347, 126 A.2d 118. T......
-
Poulin v. Town of Danville, 2-68
...purpose of its consideration facts well pleaded and it is not aided by facts not appearing in the pleading demurred to. Canfield v. Hall, 121 Vt. 52, 54, 147 A.2d 886. The petition shows the following The land on the west shore of Joe's Pond is in the Town of Cabot and that on the east shor......
-
Woodard v. Porter Hospital, Inc., 78
...is in the nature of demurrer. Likewise, a demurrer is not aided by facts which do not appear in the pleading demurred to. Canfield v. Hall, 121 Vt. 52, 54, 147 A.2d 886. The admission in evidence of the exhibits in support of the motion to dismiss was unauthorized. Consideration of the moti......
-
State v. Wood, 965
...objections were to the State's Attorney's argument. These objections were sustained. Therefore the exceptions which the court allowed [121 Vt. 52] must be held to have been allowed to the State rather than to the respondent. Even if it could be assumed that the court intended to allow the e......
-
Appliance Acceptance Co. v. Stevens, 1317
...of review apply. Theirs is the responsibility of producing a record before this Court that substantiates their position. Canfield v. Hall, 121 Vt. 52, 56, 147 A.2d 886; Ricci v. Billings, 119 Vt. 453, 457, 128 A.2d 754; [121 Vt. 488] Bilodeau & Co. v. Reed, 119 Vt. 342, 347, 126 A.2d 118. T......