TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dietrich v. Hutchinson

Christian Dietrich v. Lydia Hutchinson

Dietrich v. Hutchinson, 56 A. 6 (Vt. 1903)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Vermont · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 3, 1903
Judges
Haselton, Start, Tyler, Watson
Citations
56 A. 675 Vt. 3891903 Vt. LEXIS 145
Disposition
Dumurrer sustained and bill dismissed. The orator appealed.
Cited by 3
Headnotes
Allegations — Former decision in same case. A former decision in a cause will not be changed upon the same allegations.
Summary
Appeae in Chancery. Heard on demurrer to the amended bill, at the December Term, 1901, Caledonia County, Munson, Chancellor. The mortgage in question was a valid lien in equity on Lydia Hutchinson’s sole and separate property., Frary v. Booth, 37 Vt. 83; Curtis v. Simpson¡, 72 Vt. 235. An understanding between husband and wife that the latter may hold her property to her sole use may be implied. Willard v. Dow, 54 Vt. 188. The amendment asserts that as part consideration for the deed to- Lydia it was agreed that the mortgage should be given, and that defendant Deavitt knew all about it. The petition and amendments set forth no facts in addition to those before the Court at the former- hearing of this case, and do not show how the non-joinder occurred, or what the facts are with respect to it. Child v. Insurance Co56 Vt. 609; Sawyer v. Cross S’ Son, 66 Vt. 616; Sherman v. Organ Co•., 69 Vt. 356; Hunt v. Railroad Co., 59 Vt. 294. It is not alleged that any request was made on Lydia Hutchinson to remedy the defect, though she did not convey for nearly four years after the alleged agreement. Defendant Deavitt was under no obligation to execute .a quit-claim deed. Railroad Co. v. Stem-field, 42 Oh. St. 449; Ectstman v. Water Power Co., 24 Minn. 437; Pink v. Farmers' Bank, 56 Am. St. Rep. 746; Kelley v. Insurance Co., 27 N. Y. App. 336; Brain-erd v. Van Dyke, 71 Vt. 363.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Start

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Start, J.

When this case was before this Court and heard upon the report of the special master, as reported in 73 Vt. 134 , 50 Atl. 810 , it was held that the mortgage executed by Lydia Hutchinson and her husband, and sought to be foreclosed, was void because the name of the husband was not inserted in the body of the mortgage deed as a grantor; that this could not be validated without statutory power therefor; that the transaction could not be treated as an equitable mortgage; that the defendants did not hold the premises in trust for the petitioner; that we could not well say, from the record, whether the necessary elements to make a case for recission of the contract existed; and thereupon the case was remanded to the Court of Chancery without directing a final decree against the petitioner, but leaving him at liberty to apply further if he should be so advised.

After the cause was remanded to the Court of Chancery, the petitioner there attempted-to amend his petition; but in *391 doing so he brought no material fact upon the record that was .not in the original petition, or the report of the master, and considered by us on the former hearing. It does not appear why the name of the husband was not inserted in the body of the mortgage as a grantor. It may have been omitted by mistake, ignorance of the draftsman, fraud of Mrs. Hutchinson, or by the mutual agreement of the parties. Wie are not informed of the reason for the omission. It is still a matter of conjecture. We are no better informed, nor have we any other or different facts from those before us on the former hearing, when we considered that the necessary elements for a recission of the contract were not before us, and left the petitioner at liberty to apply further if so advised. The facts now before us being the same as those considered by us when we held that, on the petitioner’s showing, he was not entitled to the relief prayed for, the holding, in this respect, must be the same as it was then. Childs v. Millville Ins. Co., 56 Vt. 609 ; St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain R. R. Co. v. Hunt, 59 Vt. 294 ; Stacy v. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 32 Vt. 551 .

Decree affirmed and cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →
1908: 11909: 11934: 119082026peak 1908 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Perkins v. Vermont Hydro-Electric Corp.177 A. 631 (Vt. 1934)
  2. Dietrich v. Hutchinson69 A. 661 (Vt. 1908)
  3. Guilmont's Admr. v. Central Vermont Railway Co.73 A. 580 (Vt. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Perkins v. Vermont Hydro-Electric Corp.177 A. 631 (Vt. 1934)
  2. Guilmont's Admr. v. Central Vermont Railway Co.73 A. 580 (Vt. 1909)
  3. Dietrich v. Hutchinson69 A. 661 (Vt. 1908)

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.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Dietrich v. Hutchinson, 50 A. 810 (Vt. 1901) 13
Stacy v. Vt. Cent. R.R., 32 Vt. 551 (1860) 27
Childs v. Millville Mut. M. & F. Ins., 56 Vt. 609 (1884) 7
St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain R. R. v. Hunt, 59 Vt. 294 (1887) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list