A

DIGEST

OF ALL THE REPORTED DECISIONS OF

THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE

STATE OF VERMONT,

CONTAINED IN THE REPORTS OF N. CHIPMAN, TYLER, BRAYTON,

D. CHIPMAN. AIKENS, AND IN FORTY EIGHT VOLUMES

OF VERMONT REPORTS; ALSO, OF ALL

THE DECISIONS OF THE

COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT

OF VERMONT

WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE VERMONT REPORTS.

BY

DANIEL ROBERTS.

BURLINGTON, VT.

1878.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878, by

DANIEL ROBERTS,

In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. SEP 1 7 1907

Free Press and Times Book Print, Burlington, Vt.

PREFACE.

This Digest has been prepared in compliance with a contract made with the Judges of the Supreme Court and the State Librarian, some years ago, under a joint resolution of the Legislature. I regret that I have been obliged to keep my professional brethren so long waiting its appearance ;-a delay more annoying to myself, I may say, than harmful to them, since each year's delay has added to the work the substance of a new volume of Reports. It has cost me much labor, and, whether it be the better or the worse on this account, it is my own without assistance, except in the making up of the Table of Cases and in the proof-readings. The work has involved the careful reading of every case reported in fifty-six volumes of Reports, and the attempt to extract from each case what is in it, omitting nothing important to the decision, and to arrange in orderly form the principles of the decisions, with such illustrations as the facts of each particular case afford. It would have been much easier, by use of scissors and pastebrush, to make up this Digest of clippings of the head notes of the cases, as reported, but this would have made the work too voluminous, and, besides, these head notes are not in all cases trustworthy. I have sought to bring together, or in connection, the cases which confirm, qualify, distinguish, or in some way illustrate each other, and, by reference to future citations of the same case, have sought to give its judicial history and show its worth as an authority, and in this way to exhibit the present "form and pressure" of Vermont decisions. Still, this is meant to be a digest, not a treatise, which last it could not be to much extent of completeness, though aimed in that direction. Another advantage of this reference to later citations of a case will be appreciated by the student of his cases, since he will be apt to find associated with the case, as later cited, other authorities bearing upon the question of his study. A reference to the following cases, as cited in the Digest, among many others, may be taken as illustrations: Arlington v. Hinds, p. 106; Olcott v. Duncklee, p. 144; Kettle v. Harvey, p. 162; Tyson v. Doe, p. 167; Barnard v. Flanders, p. 296; Adams v. Adams, p. 323; Buck v. Pickwell, p. 338; Wheeler v. Lewis, p. 354; Slocum v. Catlin, p. 459; Allen v. Ogden, p. 527; Hunt v. Fay, p. 569; Yale v. Seely, p. 612.

Great pains have been taken to secure accuracy in citation and in the Table of Cases. The discovered errors of the print are so few and unimportant, being, for the most part, such as suggest their own correction, that I have not deemed author or printer deserving the discredit of a table of errata.