Mead v. Town of Moretown

• Decision Date: 19 June 1900
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: MEAD v. TOWN OF MORETOWN.

47 A. 1072

72 vt. 323

MEAD

v. TOWN OF MORETOWN.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

June 19, 1900.

Exceptions from Washington county court; Ross, Judge.

Petition by Silas O. Mead in the nature of an appeal from the decision of the selectmen of Moretown establishing and opening a highway. From a judgment establishing the highway and awarding damages to petitioner, he excepts. Exceptions dismissed.

Argued before TAFT, C. J., and ROWELL, TYLER, MUNSON, START, THOMPSON, and WATSON, JJ.

T. R. Gordon, for petitioner.

E. A. Heath, T. J. Deavitt, and E. H. Deavitt for respondent.

TAFT, C. J. The exceptions in this case were taken in the county court for the county of Washington at its September term, 1898. The court took its final adjournment on the 3d of December of that year. The court met for the disposition of cases which had been left "with the court" on the 28th day of December, and the bill of exceptions in this case was filed on the 27th of January, 1899, more than 50 days after final adjournment. In causes pending in the county court exceptions must be filed with the clerk within 30 days from the rising of the court. V. S. § 1626. And, if they are not so filed, they cannot be entertained in the supreme court Higbee v. Sutton, 14 Vt. 555; Shattuck v. Oakes, 14 Vt. 556; Small v. Haskins, 29 Vt 187; Nixon v. Phelps, Id. 198. No agreement of the parties that exceptions may be filed after 30 days from the time of final adjournment can give jurisdiction to this court This case is not in conflict with Hall v. Simpson, 63 Vt. 601, 22 Atl. 664. It does not appear in that case whether the exceptions were filed within or after the expiration of 30 days from the time of final adjournment. The written statement of facts was amended more than 30 days after the rising of the court, and the only question in that case was as to the power of amending the statement after the exceptions were filed. The court held that that could not be done. The effect of that case may be to hold that the parties cannot object to the validity of a judgment entered after the term of court has adjourned, when the case has been left with the court for judgment by agreement of parties. But, in respect to exceptions, no agreement of the parties can extend the term of court for the purpose of filing them. A majority of the court hold they must be filed within 30 days from the time of final adjournment, or the court cannot entertain them. Exceptions dismissed.