Vermont Bar Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 Spring 2016, Volume 42, No. 1 | Page 10

Ruminations

count was the preferred common law writ
for the enforcement of commercial contracts. Field held that an action for book
can be maintained for personal property
sold both at retail and wholesale.16 Early
cases were unclear on that point, and Field
removed any doubt about how the judiciary would regard such suits in the future.
In 1827, Turner v. Lowery reversed Stevens v. Adams (1819). The issue was the
statutory sixty days that a creditor, having filed a writ of collection of debt, had to
have the debtor arrested. Stevens was tolerant of delays. Turner had a harder view of
the deadline. The Court, speaking through
Judge Titus Hutchinson, took pains to describe how reluctantly the choice was made
to regard the writ as unenforceable. The
Court explained,

Stewart v. Thompson (1831) changed the
rule of mortgages, recognizing the right
of a mortgagor to assign interest and the
debt secured by the mortgage, even before foreclosure or with condition broken.
No prior case is targeted by the decision.18
In Skinner v. Watson (1832), the issue was
whether unreported decisions should be
regarded as precedent when all the judges and attorneys could rely on was their
memories, rather than any written reports.
Judge Nicolas Baylies explained,

which ought to govern our decision in
this case. The decisions of this Court
do not derive any additional efficacy as authorities, from being reported. A hasty decision, whether reported
or not, if it will not bear examination,
and leads to great and manifest inconveniences, may be overruled. A course
of decisions, whether reported or not,
which have been considered as establishing the law, and which a