W. L. ford v. B. H. Smead
| Decision Date | 05 October 1937 |
| Citation | 194 A. 369,109 Vt. 129 |
| Parties | W. L. FORD v. B. H. SMEAD |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
May Term, 1937.
Process Essential---No Jurisdiction without Process---Petition for New Trial Dismissed for Insufficiency of Recognizance under P. L. 2114.
1. A court cannot function without process.
2. Without process, a court is without jurisdiction to proceed.
3. Where recognizance attached to petition for new trial was conditioned only for payment of costs and prosecution of petition, process was void and petition should have been dismissed, since provisions of P. L. 2114 require that such recognizance also be conditioned for payment of intervening damages.
ACTION OF CONTRACT to recover for damages occasioned by alleged breach of contract in failing to procure collision insurance on automobile sold by defendant to plaintiff. Trial by jury in Hartford municipal court, A. G. Witham, Municipal Judge presiding. Verdict for the plaintiff and judgment thereon. The defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the recognizance attached thereto was insufficient, and on other grounds. Motion overruled and petition for new trial granted. The plaintiff excepted. The opinion states the case.
Judgment granting a new trial reversed, and the petition therefor dismissed with costs.
Stanley L. Chamberlain for the plaintiff.
Fred B. Thomas and Alban J. Parker for the defendant.
Present POWERS, C. J., SLACK, MOULTON, SHERBURNE and BUTTLES, JJ.
The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in the Hartford municipal court. The defendant then filed a petition for a new trial, which the plaintiff moved to dismiss. This motion was overruled and a new trial granted. The plaintiff excepted.
P. L 2114 provides that a petition for a new trial shall not issue until the proper court has taken a recognizance to the adverse party conditioned that "if the petitioner fails to prosecute his petition to effect or finally to recover in such action, he will pay the adverse party the intervening damages and costs accruing by reason of such petition."
The recognizance attached to this petition is conditioned only for costs and the prosecution of the petition. There is no condition in it, express or implied, for the payment of intervening damages.
A court cannot function without process. Without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howe v. Lisbon Savings Bank & Trust Co.
...contract action issued as a capias. This was prohibited by statute. To the same effect, Roy v. Phelps, 83 Vt. 174, 75 A. 13. Ford v. Smead, 109 Vt. 129, 194 A. 369. Writ issued in violation of P. L. 2114, providing that petition for new trial shall not issue until the proper court has taken......
-
Hayden v. Caledonia National Bank
... ... Howe v. Lisbon Savings Bank and Trust Company et ... al., 111 Vt. 201, 14 A.2d 3; Roy v. Phelps, ... supra; Ford v. Smead, 109 Vt ... 129, 130, 194 A. 369; Pacific National Bank v ... Mixter, 124 U.S. 721, 8 S.Ct. 944, 29 L.Ed. 221 ... ...
-
Cusack v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...his objection to the form of proceeding relies upon: Nellis v. Justices' Court of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.App. 394, 129 P. 472; Ford v. Smead, 109 Vt. 129, 194 A. 369; Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon, 39 Del. 22, 9 W.W.Harr. 22, 196 A. 158; Hamilton et al. v. Browder, 176 Okl. 229, 54 P.2d 1025 and ......
-
Wescott v. Briere
... ... violation of a statute prohibiting it, and cites ... Holden v. Campbell, 101 Vt. 474, 144 A ... 455, and Ford v. Smead, 109 Vt. 129, 194 A ... 369. These were petitions under chapter 92 of the Public ... Laws, section 2114 of which provides that such a ... ...