Poulin v. Town of Danville
| Decision Date | 04 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-68,2-68 |
| Citation | 250 A.2d 842,127 Vt. 421 |
| Parties | Marc A. POULIN and Mariette M. Poulin v. TOWN OF DANVILLE and Town of Cabot. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
John A. Swainbank, St. Johnsbury, for plaintiffs.
Arthur L. Graves, St. Johnsbury, for the Town of Danville.
Ryan & Ryan, Montpelier, for the Town of Cabot.
Before SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ., and BROOKS, Superior Judge.
This action was initially brought in the Court of Chancery, Caledonia County against the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Danville and that of the Town of Cabot. By order of the Court of Chancery dated November 10, 1967 the Board of Selectmen of each town were dismissed as parties and their respective towns were added as parties.
The plaintiffs are the owners of premises in Caledonia County. Both the Town of Danville and the Town of Cabot list the premises in question in the Grand List and each tax the plaintiffs as the owners. Plaintiffs allege the payment of taxes in each town for a number of years on this property. Plaintiffs also allege that they are faced with two sets of conflicting ordinances regarding zoning, etc., relating to the use of their property.
Plaintiffs essentially seek, in their bill, a determination of their right to maintain the action; that the defendants be directed to interplead among themselves to determine in which town the land is located; and that the defendants be enjoined from levying further taxes on the property or from taking any legal action, such as a tax sale procedure, to collect the taxes already levied by the defendants pending a final outcome of the case.
Each of the defendants filed an answer. Defendant, Town of Danville, incorporated in its answer a demurrer. A hearing was held on the demurrer. An order was issued by the Court of Chancery on June 6, 1968 reading in part:
'1. The plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law under applicable Vermont Statutes to determine the questions raised by them.
2. A bill of interpleader is not the proper remedy.
3. Irreparable damage has not been shown by the pleadings.
4. The demurrer of the Defendant Town of Danville is sustained.'
The foregoing is the only order or decree made by the Chancellor. The petition, at least as it related to the Town of Denville, was not dismissed. No final judgment was made passing the case out of the court below. Thereupon, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal under the provisions of 12 V.S.A. section 2382.
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. 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 statutes. Woodard v. Porter Hospital, et al., 125 Vt. 264, 265, 214 A.2d 67.
A decree adjudging a bill insufficient and sustaining a demurrer thereto, is not a final order or decree. Jones v. Stearns, Admr. et al., 96 Vt. 138, 139, 117 A. 663. Merely sustaining a demurrer without dismissing the bill is not a final judgment. Murphy Motor Sale, Inc. v. First...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kennison, 80-75
...order to vest this Court with jurisdiction over a matter. Reporter's Notes to Rule 3(b) of V.R.A.P. See also Poulin v. Town of Danville, 127 Vt. 421, 422-23, 250 A.2d 842 (1969); State v. Brown, 121 Vt. 459, 464-65, 160 A.2d 879 (1960). V.R.A.P. 4 does permit a premature notice of appeal to......
-
Petition of Dewitt, 35-68
... ... action relating to the appraisal of the real property owned by the petitioners in the Town of Fairlee in accordance with the views expressed herein ... ...