Collins v. Fogg, No. 513.

Docket NºNo. 513.
Citation199 A. 251
Case DateMay 03, 1938
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont
199 A. 251

COLLINS
v.
FOGG.

No. 513.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Franklin.

May 3, 1938.


Exceptions from Franklin Municipal Court; P. L. Shangraw, Judge.

Action by Helena Collins against Chester Fogg for damages to plaintiff's automobile from the alleged negligence of defendant. A verdict for plaintiff for $200 was set aside, and a new trial granted on the issue of damages only, and defendant brings exceptions. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the exceptions.

Motion overruled, judgment affirmed, and cause remanded.

Argued before POWERS, C. J., and SLACK, MOULTON, SHERBURNE, and BUTTLES, JJ.

J. Boone Wilson, Charles F. Black, and Willsie E. Brisbin, all of Burlington, and Sylvester & Ready, of St. Albans, for plaintiff. William R. McFeeters, of St. Albans, for defendant.

SHERBURNE, Justice.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the damages to her automobile resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant. A verdict of $200 in her favor has been set aside as to damages only, and a new trial granted on that issue only. To this ruling the defendant has excepted.

The plaintiff moves here that the defendant's exceptions be dismissed for the reason that the controversy has not ended below, and that no full and perfect judgment has been there rendered. The bill of exceptions states: "Exceptions allowed; cause passed to the Supreme Court." Hence we will assume, nothing appearing to the contrary, that the trial court acted under P. L. 2072, and in its discretion passed the exceptions to this court for determination before final judgment. In this, view of the matter, the question is before us for decision, and the plaintiff's motion must be overruled. Ryan v. Barrett, 105

Vt. 21, 162 A. 793; Hannah v. Hannah, 96 Vt. 469, 472, 120 A. 886. This last case, one where the ruling was upon a motion to set aside the verdict before judgment, is directly in point, whereas Beam v. Fish, 105 Vt. 96, 163 A. 591, cited by the plaintiff, presents a much different situation.

In support of her motion to set aside the verdict as to damages and for a new trial on that issue only, the plaintiff, among other things, pointed out "that the undisputed evidence in the case was that plaintiff's damages were $450.00." The defendant insists from this expression that the motion which the court granted was in effect that there was no evidence warranting, the verdict of $200. We do not so construe the language used. As a ground for the motion it merely pointed out that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Vermont Elec. Power Co. v. Anderson, No. 1864
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 6, 1959
    ...were not raised in the proceedings below and not brought to the appellate court by a bill of exceptions. Collins v. Fogg, 109 Vt. 433, 436, 199 A. 251; Abel's, Inc. v. Newton, 116 Vt. 272, 275, 74 A.2d Beyond that, however, it appears that the original transcript of these proceedings was fi......
  • Collins v. Fogg, No. 524.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 3, 1939
    ...to set aside the verdict as to damages only and to grant a new trial on that issue. Judgment was affirmed and cause remanded. 109 Vt. 433, 199 A. 251. At the second trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff to recover $225 damages. Plaintiff moved that the court set this verdict a......
  • Pettingill v. Kelton, No. 1230
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • February 2, 1965
    ...is related authority to set aside a verdict and order a new trial where the damages are inadequate. Collins v. Fogg, 109 Vt. 433, 436, 199 A. 251. The practice of attaching the condition that the defendant accept an increase in the damages has been more cautiously applied, and for substanti......
  • State v. Malnati, No. 1645.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • May 3, 1938
    ...An exception was taken to this charge, and it is argued that it expressed an opinion, and was prejudicial in that it amounted to 199 A. 251 an instruction that the testimony of the police officers must be believed by the jury. The charge, however, does not merit this construction. The only ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Vermont Elec. Power Co. v. Anderson, No. 1864
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 6, 1959
    ...were not raised in the proceedings below and not brought to the appellate court by a bill of exceptions. Collins v. Fogg, 109 Vt. 433, 436, 199 A. 251; Abel's, Inc. v. Newton, 116 Vt. 272, 275, 74 A.2d Beyond that, however, it appears that the original transcript of these proceedings was fi......
  • Collins v. Fogg, No. 524.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 3, 1939
    ...to set aside the verdict as to damages only and to grant a new trial on that issue. Judgment was affirmed and cause remanded. 109 Vt. 433, 199 A. 251. At the second trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff to recover $225 damages. Plaintiff moved that the court set this verdict a......
  • Pettingill v. Kelton, No. 1230
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • February 2, 1965
    ...is related authority to set aside a verdict and order a new trial where the damages are inadequate. Collins v. Fogg, 109 Vt. 433, 436, 199 A. 251. The practice of attaching the condition that the defendant accept an increase in the damages has been more cautiously applied, and for substanti......
  • State v. Malnati, No. 1645.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • May 3, 1938
    ...An exception was taken to this charge, and it is argued that it expressed an opinion, and was prejudicial in that it amounted to 199 A. 251 an instruction that the testimony of the police officers must be believed by the jury. The charge, however, does not merit this construction. The only ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT