Maughan v. Burns' Estate
| Decision Date | 04 February 1892 |
| Citation | 23 A. 583,64 Vt. 316 |
| Parties | BRIDGET MAUGHAN v. ESTATE OF MICHAEL BURNS |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
JANUARY TERM, 1892
Judgment affirmed and to be certified.
W.H Preston & J.C. Baker, for the defendant.
This is an appeal from the decision and report of the commissioners on the estate of Michael Burns. Plaintiff presented her claim to the commissioners at $ 2,789.65. The ad damnum in her declaration filed in the Probate Court was $ 3,500. In the County Court she recovered $ 3,813.49. Thereupon she moved for leave to amend her declaration by raising the ad damnum to $ 4,000 which was granted, and she had judgment for the amount of her recovery.
The identical claim presented to the commissioners was the claim tried above. The amount of plaintiff's recovery rested on the quantum meruit. The jury found that she merited more than she estimated her claim when she presented it to the commissioners. But such underestimate did not preclude her from recovering more if the testimony showed her entitled to it, as presumably it did, as more was found. The fact of such estimate was evidence against her deserving more, as it was an implied admission that what she claimed was enough but the admission was not conclusive upon her, and did not prevent her from recovering more. Rooney v. Minor, 56 Vt. 527; Stowe v. Bishop, 58 Vt. 498; Hard v. Burton, 62 Vt. 314.
It is conceded that in common-law actions the court has power to raise the ad damnum at any time; but it is claimed that as the Probate Court is not a common-law court, but is a court of special and limited jurisdiction, and has by statute original jurisdiction of the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, the County Court has no power to raise the ad damnum of the declaration filed in the Probate Court.
The County Court has, by statute, appellate jurisdiction of matters originally within the jurisdiction of the Probate Court; and in such appeals it sits as a higher Court of Probate, and its jurisdiction is coextensive with that of the Probate Court. It is not limited to the particular questions that arose in the Probate Court in the matter appealed, but is expressly extended to matters originally within the jurisdiction of that court. It is an appellate court for the re-hearing and the re-examination of matters, not particular questions merely, that have been acted upon in the court below. Adams v. Adams, 21 Vt. 162. And these matters embrace even those that rest in discretion. Holmes v. Holmes, 26 Vt. 536. In Francis v. Lathrope, 2 Tyl. 372, the claimant was allowed on terms to file a declaration in the County Court he having omitted to file one in the Probate Court as required by statute. It was within the jurisdiction of the Probate Court to have allowed this amendment, and as the County Court had all the jurisdiction of the Probate Court in this behalf, it also had power to allow...
To continue reading
Request your trial