Johnson v. Saindow

• Decision Date: 06 October 1926
• Citation: 134 A. 585
• Parties: JOHNSON v. SAINDOW.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

134 A. 585

JOHNSON

v. SAINDOW.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

Oct. 6, 1926.

Exceptions from Washington County Court; Prank D. Thompson, Judge.

Action by J. Leo Johnson against Albert Saindow. Judgment for plaintiff for part only of his claim, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions dismissed.

Argued before SLACK, BUTLER, and FISH, JJ., and MOULTON and CHASE, Superior Judges.

Theriault & Hunt, of Montpelier, for plaintiff.

Davis & Conway, of Barre, for defendant.

SLACK, J. This is an action of contract brought to recover the amount claimed to be due on a promissory note. The trial was by court. On the facts found plaintiff had judgment for part only of his claim, and the case comes here on his exceptions.

While the record does not show that the case has in fact been settled since the judgment below was rendered so that the rights of the parties are no longer in controversy, and that the case is being prosecuted here, by agreement of the parties, for the sole purpose of having the law raised by plaintiff's exceptions decided for the government of future cases, counsel for the respective parties, in effect, admit such to be the fact. Since this is so, we take no time to examine the exceptions.

We have repeatedly refused to entertain moot cases. In re James, 99 Vt. 477, 129 A. 175; Lindsay v. Town of Brattleboro et al., 96 Vt. 503, 120 A. 888; In re Reynolds' Estate, 89 Vt. 224, 95 A. 498; Alfred v. Alfred, 87 Vt. 542, 90 A. 580; State v. Webster, 80 Vt. 391, 67 A. 1098. No stipulation of parties or counsel, whether in the case before the court or in any other case, can affect the power or duty of the court in this regard.

Exceptions dismissed without costs to either party in this court.