Sheldon v. Clemons
| Citation | 82 Vt. 169,72 A. 687 |
| Parties | SHELDON v. CLEMONS. |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1909 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Appeal in Chancery, Bennington County; Willard W. Miles, Chancellor.
Petition by Moses Sheldon, assignee, against Louise Clemons, for leave to file an amended bill after remand by the Supreme Court affirming a decree dismissing the bill. From an order denying the petition and dismissing the bill, petitioner appeals. Affirmed and remanded.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, and WATSON, JJ.
W. B. Sheldon, for appellant. O. M. Barber and J. K. Batchelder, for appellee.
When this case was here on appeal from the decree rendered upon the pleadings, master's report, orator's exceptions to the report, and motion to recommit 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 without anything further being done until May 15, 1908, when the orator presented his petition for leave to file an amended bill. A hearing being had on the petition as far as it relates to the filing of the proposed amended bill, it was considered and adjudged, as matter of law, that the court of chancery has no jurisdiction to grant the petition in this respect, and without prejudice to the orator as to any other matters contained in the petition it was ordered that leave to file the proposed amended bill be denied, and that final decree be entered dismissing the bill, with costs, pursuant to the mandate from this court on file.
The orator contends that under the provisions of sections 1317 and 1318 of the Public Statutes the court of chancery had the power to grant the petition, and that to deny it as matter of law was error. The original bill has not been furnished us, yet it appears from the master's report and from the opinion of this court (72 Vt. 185, 47 Atl. 796) that the main question in the case heard and determined by the master was, in the language of the court, "whether there was a collusive agreement or understanding between the parties to the suit at law to the effect that the plaintiff therein should obtain a larger judgment than he was entitled to, and thereby defraud the defendant's other creditors." The master found affirmatively that whatever was done or omitted on that trial was not the result of a collusive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hooker, Corser & Mitchell Company v. James F. Hooker William H. Corser, And Charles D. Whittaker
...it would have operated to open the case for the trial of one phase of the question of liability right over again. In Sheldon v. Clemmons, 82 Vt. 169, 72 A. 687, it was held that sections 1317 and 1318 of the Statutes were not intended to give and do not give the court of chancery, after man......
-
Hooker, Corser & Mitchell Co. v. Hooker
...it would have operated to open the case for the trial of one phase of the question of liability right over again. In Sheldon v. Clemmons, 82 Vt. 169, 72 Atl. 687, it was held that sections 1317 and 1318 of the Public Statutes were not intended to give, and do not give, the court of chancery......
-
William M. Osgood v. William E. Brown
... ... statute. Hooker, Corser & Mitchell Co. v. Hooker ... et al., 89 Vt. 383, 386, 95 A. 649; Sheldon v ... Clemmons, 82 Vt. 169, 72 A. 687. Moreover, these ... proceedings do not come within the letter or spirit of that ... statute. This petition ... ...
-
Hattie M. Gordon And John W. Gordon v. Thomas J. Deavitt
...on the demurrer. This being so, the refusal by the chancellor to permit defendant Deavitt to file answer was not error. Sheldon v. Clemmons, 82 Vt. 169, 72 A. 687. It further urged that it was error not to refer the cause to a master, or to have a hearing before the chancellor, to ascertain......