Lyons v. Ross, 302
| Citation | 196 A.2d 576,124 Vt. 86 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 302,302 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mildred LYONS v. James C. ROSS. |
Joseph S. Wool, Burlington, for plaintiff.
A. Pearley Feen, Burlington, for defendant.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and SYLVESTER, JJ.
A verdict for the defendant was set aside and a new trial ordered. From this order the defendant seasonably requested permission of the court to appeal before final judgment by presenting an instrument for the trial court's signature, which would have granted permission to take an appeal under the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 2386. Whereupon, this docket entry was made, 'the court refused to sign.'
On August 12, 1963 the defendant filed a notice of appeal from both the order setting aside the verdict, and from the refusal of the trial court to grant permission to take an appeal before final judgment. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeals.
Appeals before final judgment can only be taken by permission of the court whose order is sought to be reviewed. Without such permission there is no appellate jurisdiction. 12 V.S.A. § 2386. Murphy Motor Sales v. First National Bank of Johnsbury, 121 Vt. 404, 405, 159 A.2d 94; Roy v. Roy, 123 Vt. 92, 182 A.2d 337; Brown v. Brown, 121 Vt. 283, 284, 155 A.2d 748.
Our relinquishment of this case for jurisdictional reasons is not to be regarded as an approval of the method adopted by the trial court in disposing of the questions which the defendant seeks to have reviewed. To the contrary, the procedure followed was inconsistent with the orderly and impartial administration of justice. We think the defendant was entitled to an indication from the trial court as to its reasons for setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial. See Grow v. Wolcott, 123 Vt. 490, 194 A.2d 403, 407 (1963). Furthermore, the defendant should have been granted a hearing on his request for permission to appeal before final judgment, and the court should have stated the reasons why permission was denied.
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Putney v. Town of Brookline
...the point. This is equivalent protection to that which is available on request where permission to appeal is denied. See Lyons v. Ross, 124 Vt. 86, 87, 196 A.2d 576. But the record here makes it entirely clear that intermediate review of the lower court's ruling on the stipulated question o......
-
Woodard v. Porter Hospital, Inc., 78
...is sought to be reviewed. Here, no permission was obtained. Without such permission there is no appellate jurisdiction. Lyons v. Ross, 124 Vt. 86, 87, 196 A.2d 576 and Murphy Motor Sales, Inc. v. First National Bank of St. Johnsbury, 121 Vt. 404, 405, 159 A.2d 94; Roy v. Roy, 123 Vt. 92, 18......
-
Weeks v. Burnor
...procedure followed by the trial court was inconsistent with the orderly and impartial administration of justice. Cf. Lyons v. Ross, 124 Vt. 86, 87, 196 A.2d 576 (1963). For the reasons hereinbefore stated in this opinion, question one is answered in the negative; question two is answered in......
-
Poulin v. Town of Danville
...whose order is sought to be reviewed. Without such permission there is no appellate jurisdiction. 12 V.S.A. section 2386. Lyons v. Ross, 124 Vt. 86, 87, 196 A.2d 576. If a litigant desires a review of his case in this Court he must apply for it in time and in the manner prescribed by the st......