contract to purchase land in 1779. HENRY HARMON, THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMON LAW AND EQUITY PROCEDURE: A MANUAL OF VERMONT COURT PROCEDURE 36 (1912). If we were particular, we could ask whether either example of the earliest equitable decision was au- thorized by the Constitution, but the appeal peri-
od has passed, and we too should pass over it. 3
“An act constituting the Superior Court a Court
of Equity, and declaring their power,” Oct. 22, 1779, 12 STATE PAPERS OF VERMONT 181-182 (Allen Soule ed., 1964); Russell Taft, The Supreme Court
of Vermont, THE GREEN BAG (1870) at pp. 188-189. 4
eds., 1991). 5
(1824). 6
RECORDS OF THE COUNCIL OF CENSORS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT 89 (Paul S. Gillies & D. Gregory Sanford
DANIEL CHIPMAN, 1 REPORTS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE VERMONT SUPREME COURT 21-22
“An act constituting a Court of Chancery,” Oct. 23, 1788, 14 STATE PAPERS OF VERMONT 418 (John A.
Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co. v. Barre & Montpelier Traction & Power Co., 97 Vt. 306
Williams ed., 1966). 7
(1924). 8
Id.
“An act constituting a Court of Chancery,” March 2, 1797, CHAPTER IV, LAWS OF THE STATE OF VER-
MONT REVISED (1798), at 125-126. 9
“An act, in addition to an act, entitled, ‘an act, constituting a Court of Chancery,” March 7, 1802,
10
id. at 123-124. 11
“An act, making further provisions in the judi- ciary department, and for repealing certain acts and parts of acts, herein mentioned,” No. 35 (Nov.
12 13
1, 1821), LAWS OF VERMONT (1824), at 113. 14
15 SIR HENRY MAINE, ANCIENT LAW 28 (1901).
ARISTOTLE, THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS 123 (William David Ross trans., 1908) (calling it a “correction of the law where it is defective owing to its uni- versality” that will “say what the legislator himself would have said had he been present, and would
not have put into his law had he known”). 16
means equal and just. 17
JOSEPH STORY, 1 COMMENTARIES ON EQUITY JURISPRU- DENCE 1 (1836, 1918). The phrase “œquo et bono”
WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 3 COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW
OF ENGLAND 429 (1774). 18
HARMON, supra note 2, at 24-25.
COUNCIL OF CENSORS, supra note 4, at 270. Id., 217-218.
19 FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, EQUITY: A COURSE OF
LECTURES 19 (1909). 20
Canfield v. Andrew, 54 Vt. 1, 42 (1882). 21 Sturgis v. Knapp, 33 Vt. 486 (1860).
22 Chancellor’s Foot, in BRYAN A. GARNER, A DIC-
The presence of a legal issue in a case is not a determining factor in deciding whether a jury trial is appropriate. Rather, entitlement to a jury trial is dependent upon the relief requested. If the relief requested is equitable, no right to a jury trial ex- ists.” Merchants Bank v. Thibodeau, 143 Vt. 132,
TIONARY OF MODERN LEGAL USAGE 146 (2d ed. 1995). 23
134 (1983). 24
VT.CONST. ARTS.10, 12.
25 Court of Chancery, Chap. XXIV, REVISED STATUTES OF THE STATE OF VERMONT PASSED NOV. 19, 1839, 147-
157 (1840). 26
Id. 27 Id. at 151. 28 This limitation was removed in 1937. Couture v.
Lowery, 122 Vt. 505, 506-507 (1962). 29
der a new trial. Id. at 221-222. 30
Salson v. Cannon & Warren, 19 Vt. 219 (1847). This case resolved whether the chancery court had the power over bills of review, but not to or-
MORTON J. HORWITZ, THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERI-
CAN LAW 1860-1950, 17 (1992). 31
Equity, in THE OXFORD COMPANION TO AMERICAN
LAW 270 (Kermit L. Hall ed., 2002). 32
1890. LAWS OF 1890, No. 32. 33
1819 (1821). 34
at 151. 35
Ch. 24, Sec. 24, REVISED LAWS OF VERMONT (1840) at 151. This limit was removed from statute in
Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Chan-
cery, inWILLIAM BRAYTON, REPORTS OF CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF VERMONT 1815-
Court of Chancery, Chap. XXIV, REVISED STATUTES, Id. at 217-218. 36 Clark v. Peck, 79 Vt. 275 (1906). 37 Garfield v. University of Vermont, 10 Vt. 536,
536 (1836). 38
(1924). 39
(1896). 41
Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co. v. Barre & Montpelier Traction & Power Co., 97 Vt. 306
State v. Murphy, 71 Vt. 127 (1898).
40 Domestic & Foreign Missionary Soc. Of the Protestant Episcopal Church v. Eells, 68 Vt. 497
Id. at ***, citing Adams’ Heirs v. Adams, 22 Vt.
59 (1849). 42
(1835). 44
45
ardson v. Daggett, 4 Vt. 336 (1832). 43
Id. at 317, 318.
46 COUNCIL OF CENSORS, supra note 4, at 269. 47 VERMONT FARMER (St. Johnsbury, Vt.), May 29,
1874. 48
VERMONT FARMER, March 3, 1878. 49 HAMILTON CHILD & WILLIAM ADAMS, GAZETTEER OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, VT. 1783-1889, 45 (1891). 50
LAWS OF 1906, NO. 64, § 10, 33.
In 1826, there was a confrontation within the court of chancery. Vermont had four Supreme Court judges at the time, and consequently four chancellors. In Dana v. Nelson, there was a tie, with two chancellors taking one position and two taking the other, but a solicitor suggested a com- promise and a majority was attained. Dana v. Nel-
51
son, 1 Vt. 256 (1826). 52
Couture v. Lowery, 122 Vt. 505 (1962).
53 GEORGE HENRY BOKE, CASES IN EQUITY 23 (1915). 54 SEAN O. HOGAN, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOV-
CRS Annotated Constitution, Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. http://
www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt7frag3_
ERNMENT: PEOPLE, PROCESS, AND POLITICS 100 (2006). 55
user.html. 56
HOGAN, supra note 53, at 100. 57 LAWS OF 1969, NO. 129. 58 V.R.C.P. 2.
219-220 (1972). 60
59 Markowski v. Town of Pittsford, 130 Vt. 218, VT. CONST., Ch.2, Secs. 30 & 31; Pabst v. Lath-
rop, 135 Vt. 266, 268-269 (1977) (statute implied repeal by civil rules). “After the effective date of the rules as prescribed, or amended, all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or
effect.” 12 V.S.A. § 1. 61
Sections of Chapters 25 (Process), 27 (Plead-
ing and Practice), 29 (Depositions and Discov- ery), 81 (Conduct of Trial), all of 83 (Reference of Causes), 102 (Appellate Procedure), 103 (Passing Causes to Supreme Court), and 105 (Writs of Er- ror), among others, were repealed by the 1969
act. 62
The statute read, “After [April 27, 1984], no court shall set aside any judgment, decree or or- der entered before December 12, 1983 by the su- perior court in an action, appeal or other proceed- ing on the grounds that the participation or non- participation of assistant judges was improper un-
64 65
der 4 V.S.A. §§ 111(a) or 219.” 66
70 (1984). 67
Solomon v. Atlantis Development, Inc., 145 Vt. State v. Willis, 145 Vt. 459, 483 (1985).
68 “An act for the limitation of actions,” March 10,
1787, 14 STATE PAPERS OF VERMONT 340. 69
Lysak v. Grull, 174 Vt. 523 (2002).
70 Higgins v. Ringwig, 128 Vt. 534 (1970). 71 Adams v. Soule, 33 Vt. 538 (1860).
72 LARRY L. TEPLY, RALPH U. WHITTEN, & DENIS F. MCLAUGHLIN, CASES, TEXT, AND PROBLEMS ON CIVIL PRO-
4 V.S.A. § 219. Just how rich the equitable pow- ers of the probate division of the superior court are is unclear, if you read the Reporter’s Notes. V.R.P.P. 65, Reporter’s Notes; see In re Proctor, 140 Vt. 6, 9 (1981) (“We do not read 14 V.S.A. § 2327, however, as being a broad grant of inde- pendent jurisdiction. The section merely allows a probate court to invoke certain equitable reme- dies required to deal adequately with those mat- ters properly before it.”)
CEDURE 16 (2002). 73
18 THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • SUMMER 2012
www.vtbar.org
618 (1983). 63
Id.
Soucy v. Soucy Motors, Inc., 143 Vt. 615, 617- Id. at 623-624.
Hogaboom v. Herrick, 4 Vt. 131 (1832); Rich- Executors of Joseph Burr v. Smith, 7 Vt. 241 Id. at 298.
Ruminations: The Vermont Court of Chancery
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44