Sheldon v. Clemmons
| Decision Date | 27 March 1900 |
| Citation | 72 Vt. 185,47 A. 796 |
| Parties | SHELDON v. CLEMMONS. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Appeal in chancery, Bennington county; Munson, Chancellor.
Bill by Moses Sheldon, as assignee in insolvency of Warren Clemmons, against Louise Clemmons, to restrain the enforcement of a judgment against the insolvent estate. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before TAFT, C. J., and ROWELL, TYLER, START, THOMPSON, and WATSON, JJ.
W. B. Sheldon, for the orator.
Barber & Darling, J. K. Batchelder, and F. C. Archibald, for defendant.
It appears from the master's report that the defendant brought a suit in the Bennington county court against her brother, Warren Clemmons, in which she sought to recover a balance which she claimed was due upon her sale to him in February, 1881, of all her interest in the personal and real estate of their father. In consideration of the sale and conveyance. Warren was to pay all the defendant's existing liabilities, and pay her the difference between the amount thereof and the value of the property conveyed, which value was never agreed upon. The suit was tried at the June term, 1894, and this defendant obtained a judgment for $3, 180 and costs, which was affirmed by this court at the January term, 1895. 68 Vt. 77, 34 Atl. 34. In December, 1894, the orator was appointed assignee in insolvency of Warren Clemmons' estate; and in June, 1895, he brought this bill, alleging that said judgment was obtained through the fraud and collusion of the parties to that suit, and praying that this defendant be enjoined from enforcing her judgment lien upon the insolvent estate. The defendant demurred to a part, and answered the remainder, of the bill. The demurrer was sustained, and the allegations contained in the part of the bill demurred to were held insufficient, and no appeal was taken by the orator. Upon the coming in of the master's report, the court of chancery, pro forma, overruled the orator's exceptions thereto and his motion to recommit, and entered a decree dismissing the bill, with costs, and the orator appealed. The defendant presented the judgment which she obtained in this court to the court of insolvency, and it was allowed. The orator appealed to the county court, which rendered judgment for the defendant, and there was an affirmance by this court at the May term, 1897. 69 Vt. 545, 38 Atl. 314.
As the decree of the court of chancery sustaining the demurrer was not final, but interlocutory, the orator could not have appealed from it. V. S. § 981. That decree remained in the court of chancery until the final decree was made, when the appeal therefrom brought the whole case here. Upon consideration we hold that the demurrer was properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clifford v. W. Hartford Creamery Co., Inc.
...litigated in the court below which affect the final decree, regardless of the party raising them, to this court for review. Sheldon v. Clemmons, 72 Vt. 185, 47 A. 796; Essex Storage Elec. Co. v. Victory Lumber Co., 93 Vt. 437, 444, 108 A. 426; Westinghouse Co. v. Traction & Power Co., 97 Vt......
-
Artemus P. Clifford v. West Hartford Creamery Co., Inc
... ... litigated in the court below which affect the final decree, ... regardless of the party raising them, to this Court for ... review. Sheldon v. Clemmons , 72 Vt. 185, 47 ... A. 796; Essex Storage [103 Vt. 238] Elec ... Co. v. Victory Lumber Co. , 93 Vt. 437, 444, 108 ... A. 426; ... ...
- Farr v. Briggs' Estate
-
Sheldon v. Clemons
...the same, the decree dismissing the bill, with costs, was affirmed, and cause remanded, with mandate that the bill be dismissed. 72 Vt. 185, 47 Atl. 796. The case was thus remanded at the January term, 1900, of this court, and thereafter remained on the docket of the court of chancery witho......