From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pierce v. Torrey

Supreme Court of Vermont. October Term, 1928
Nov 7, 1928
143 A. 543 (Vt. 1928)


Opinion filed November 7, 1928.

Necessity of Exception to Finding To Test Question of Sufficiency of Evidence To Support It — Exception to Judgment Insufficient To Raise Question Whether Finding Supported by Evidence.

1. In action of contract to recover purchase price of automobile, where record failed to disclose that any exception was taken to court's finding that there was a contract of sale between parties, claimed insufficiency of evidence to support such finding was not before Supreme Court for consideration.

2. Exception to judgment does not raise question whether findings were warranted by evidence.

ACTION OF CONTRACT to recover purchase price of automobile. Plea, general issue. Trial by court at the June Term, 1927, Windsor County, Sherburne, J., presiding. Judgment for plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case. Affirmed.

Stanley C. Wilson for the plaintiff.

Stickney, Sargent Skeels for the defendant.

Present: POWERS, SLACK, MOULTON, and CHASE, JJ., and WILLCOX, Supr. J.

This is an action in contract brought to recover the purchase price of an automobile. Trial was by court, and, after a finding of facts, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case to this Court on exceptions.

The bill of exceptions states that the transcript of the evidence is made a part of the bill for the purpose of showing the exceptions taken, their setting and connection, and also for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment. It appears by the bill that the defendant seasonably excepted to the judgment.

The only point briefed by the defendant is that of the claimed insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that there was a contract of sale between the parties. But the record does not disclose that any exception to the finding upon this, or any other ground, was taken below, and consequently the question is not before us for consideration. Temple et ux. v. Atwood, 100 Vt. 371, 372, 137 A. 321, and cases cited; Corey v. McLean, 100 Vt. 90, 91, 135 A. 10.

The exception to the judgment does not raise the question whether the findings were warranted by the evidence. Wilson v. Barrows, 96 Vt. 344, 346, 119 A. 422; Wolcott v. Mongeon, 88 Vt. 361, 364, 92 A. 457.

Judgment affirmed.

Summaries of

Pierce v. Torrey

Supreme Court of Vermont. October Term, 1928
Nov 7, 1928
143 A. 543 (Vt. 1928)
Case details for

Pierce v. Torrey

Case Details


Court:Supreme Court of Vermont. October Term, 1928

Date published: Nov 7, 1928


143 A. 543 (Vt. 1928)
143 A. 543

Citing Cases

McAllister v. Northern Oil Co., Inc.

But the only question raised by the bill of exceptions is whether the findings support the judgment. So the…

Conn Boston Co. v. Griswold

The defendant argues that the finding, in effect, that the plaintiff did not materially breach the terms of…