Sprague v. Fletcher

• Citation: 67 Vt. 46,30 A. 693
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 03 December 1894
• Parties: SPRAGUE v. FLETCHER.

30 A. 693

67 Vt. 46

SPRAGUE

v. FLETCHER.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Rutland.

Dec. 3, 1894.

Exceptions from Rutland county court; Munson, Judge.

Action on the case by Nathan T. Sprague against William C. Fletcher. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant excepts. Reversed.

The live counts demurred to were, in substance, the same, and each was as follows: "(1) In a plea of trespass on the case, for that the defendant, on the 17th day of January, 1894, at Brandon, in the county of Rutland, was the collector of taxes for the said town of Brandon, and, acting in that capacity, and as such, pretended to hold a tax for collection against the plaintiff; and the plaintiff says that he, the plaintiff, was then and there the owner of and held title to one share of the capital stock of the First National Bank of Brandon, a corporation existing by virtue of the laws of the United States, and located and having its place of business at said Brandon, of the value of two hundred dollars; and that the defendant did then and there levy upon and sell said one share of stock, in satisfaction of said pretended tax, without right, whereby he, the plaintiff, was then and there divested of his title in and to said stock, and wholly lost the use and value of the same."

E. J. Ormsbee, C. M. Willard, and C. A. Prouty, for plaintiff.

J. C. Baker and C. M. Wilds, for defendant.

ROSS, C. J. The contention is in regard to the sufficiency of the several counts in case demurred to. In substance they are alike. The essential facts, admitted by the demurrer, are that the defendant was a collector of taxes, acting in that capacity, and pretended to hold a tax for collection against the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was the owner of bank stock of value, and that the defendant levied upon and sold the bank stock without right, in satisfaction of the pretended tax. The allegation, "whereby the plaintiff was divested of his title to the stock and wholly lost its use and value," is the conclusion of pleader. To be justified, it must be supported by sufficient proper allegations antecedently pleaded, so that the court can see that the conclusion of the pleader is one which the facts already set forth will uphold. To support an action on the case, the facts well pleaded must show an Invasion of a legal right of the plaintiff, either with a proper allegation of injury or the invasion of such a right that the law implies some resulting injury. Griffin v. Farewell, 20 Vt. 151; Troy v. Aiken, 48 Vt. 55. The right alleged to have been Invaded was the plaintiff's right in and to the shares of bank stock. This is an intangible right,...