Charles v. Howard
Charles & Riley Adams v. Solomon Howard
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
By the Court.
This court would have no jurisdiction to grant new trials in any case tried in the county court, if it were not conferred by statute, as, at common law, all applications for new trials, or for a trial in cases where judgment had been rendered by default, must have been made to the court wherein the cause had been determined. By statute, this court is empowered to “ grant a new trial in any cause determined by the county court,” &c. This provision is much in the samé terms as the statute in force before the late revision. Under that statute it was considered that the county court had exclusive cognizance of cases like the present. Scott v. Stewart, 5 Vt. R. 57. It was there considered by this court, that the term “ new trial,” as used in the statute, was technical, and was predicable only of such cases as had been tried on their merits. The application in this case is for a trial, (not a new trial,) and can only be entertained by the county court. The statute giving power to the supreme court to grant “ new trials” obviously does not extend to a ease like the present, where the cause had never been tried.
Petition dismissed with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.