Lowry v. Catlin

• Decision Date: 01 January 1829
• Citation: 2 Vt. 365
• Parties: HEMAN LOWRY v. GUY CATLIN
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

2 Vt. 365

HEMAN LOWRY v. GUY CATLIN

Supreme Court of Vermont, Chittenden

January, 1829

This was a motion to amend the record of a judgment rendered by this Court at a former term. The petition stated, That the said Lowry, by the consideration of the county court, at the February term in 1822, recovered a judgment against Catlin for $ 181,02 damages, and $ 32 81 cost--that the defendant filed his bill of exceptions, and afterwards, at the Supreme Court, January term, 1823, entered his writ of error to reverse the said judgment, which was continued to the January term of said Court, 1824, when the judgment of the county court was affirmed, and judgment rendered by said Supreme Court; and the entry on the docket was,

Dam. $ 23 80

Cost 7 40

At the March term of the county court in 1824, Catlin entered his petition for a new trial in said cause, which was granted. At the September term in 1824, a silent judgment was rendered for Catlin, and Lowry appealed to the Supreme Court, January 1825, and the cause was continued to December term, 1825, at which term it was ordered to the county court for trial, and was entered there March term, 1826, at which term the plaintiff made his motion to dismiss all the proceedings in the suit subsequent to the January term of the Supreme Court in 1824, which motion was granted. At the term of this court in December, 1826, the plaintiff filed his motion to have the records and docket minutes in the suit, made in the Supreme Court, January term, 1824, corrected, and judgment entered up as of that term, for the sum recovered, as aforesaid, in the county court, February, 1822, together with the damages sustained by the delay occasioned by said writ of error,

amounting in the whole to

$ 204 82;

And also for the cost taxed at said

February term, 1822, and the cost

taxed in the Supreme Court, Janu-

ary term, 1824, amounting to

$ 40 21;

which motion was lost, and is hereby renewed.

Thompson for plaintiff.

Adams for defendant.

OPINION

PADDOCK, J.

The Court are satisfied that the judgment of the Supreme Court January term, 1824, affirming the judgment of the county court, and entering up the sum of $ 23,80 as damages, instead of the judgment recovered in the county court, was incorrect. The Court have no hesitation in saying that the record ought to be amended, if proper means can be provided, whereby the latent rights of Catlin can be saved; and perhaps the...