McGowan v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 29 November 1906 |
| Citation | 64 A. 1121,79 Vt. 295 |
| Parties | McGOWAN v. BOWMAN. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Appeal from Washington County Court; James M. Tyler, Judge.
Action by Martin J. McGowan against Frank B. Bowman. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., MUNSON, START, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.
Gordon & Jackson, for appellant. Burton E. Bailey and Edward H. Deavitt, for appellee.
This was general assumpsit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the claimed amount of a grocery bill. The case was brought before a justice of the peace of the city of Barre. At the trial before the justice the defendant's counsel stated that the defendant was in bankruptcy and moved for a continuance. This statement of counsel could not, however, legally operate as a stay of proceedings. The case went on, and on April 20, 1901, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $41.21 damages, and $7 costs. The defendant appealed to the Washington county court.
At the September term, 1904, of that court trial was had by the court and judgment was rendered for the defendant to recover his costs. The pleadings, as finally made up, consisted of the declaration, a plea of discharge in bankruptcy, a replication, a rejoinder in which the defendant prayed judgment and for his costs, and a sur-rejoinder in which the plaintiff prayed an inquiry by the country. At one time the pleadings were different, but the earlier pleadings subsequent to the declaration had all been withdrawn, and on trial there was no general issue un the case, nor any pleadings other than those above designated. The issues made by these pleadings were: (1) Was the defendant insolvent at the time of the commencement of the suit by the trustee process; and (2) would the existence and enforcement of the plaintiff's lien acquired by the service of the trustee process work a preference? Some evidence, not relating to the issues which the pleaders had chosen to make, but not prejudicial, was received under general objections and exceptions. These need not be considered. The evidence relevant to the issues in the case was not excepted to, and on these issues the court, in effect, found against the plaintiff, and judgment for the defendant to recover his costs was properly rendered. The plaintiff in argument raises various questions which under the pleadings need not be considered.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Oil Co. of N.Y. v. Stevens
...for one, and it is settled that the mere suggestion in the record of the defendant's bankruptcy did not operate as one. McGowan v. Bowman, 79 Vt. 295, 299, 64 A. 1121. The plaintiff sued for a balance due on an account for oil and gas sold to the defendant. At the trial the accuracy of the ......
-
Standard Oil Co. of New York v. B. O. Stevens
... ... one, and it is settled that the mere suggestion in the record ... of the defendant's bankruptcy did not operate as one ... McGowan v. Bowman, 79 Vt. 295, 299, 64 A ... [151 A. 508] ... The plaintiff sued for a balance due on an account for oil ... and gas sold to the ... ...
-
Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc.
...Allard v. Estes, 292 Mass. 187, 193, 197 N.E. 884; Star Braiding Co. v. Stienen Dyeing Co., 44 R.I. 8, 10, 114 A. 129; McGowan v. Bowman, 79 Vt. 295, 299, 64 A. 1121; 6 Am.Jur. 594, § 55. The plaintiff failed to enter an appearance in the suit brought by the defendant. He allowed a default ......
-
Red River Nat. Bank v. Bray
...action. Miller v. Clements, 54 Tex. 354; Coffee v. Ball, 49 Tex. 25; Feigenspan v. McDonell, 201 Mass. 341, 87 N. E. 624; McGowan v. Bowman, 79 Vt. 295, 64 Atl. 1121. The judgment in this respect will be reversed, and a judgment will be here rendered in favor of appellant against Bray for t......