Crocker v. Spencer
Supreme Court of Vermont
a cookingstove is not an article of ornament or luxury, but is an article of household furniture, necessary for upholding life, within the meaning of the statute, exempting certain articles of personal property from attachment and execution. THIS was a writ of error brought to reverse a judgment rendered by the County Court for the County of Rutland, in an action of trespass brought by Crocker v. Spencer for taking a cooking stove and pipe, the property of Crocker.
Read the full summary
a cookingstove is not an article of ornament or luxury, but is an article of household furniture, necessary for upholding life, within the meaning of the statute, exempting certain articles of personal property from attachment and execution. THIS was a writ of error brought to reverse a judgment rendered by the County Court for the County of Rutland, in an action of trespass brought by Crocker v. Spencer for taking a cooking stove and pipe, the property of Crocker. To which Siioncer in the Court below pleaded, That the plaintiff, from having and maintaining his said action thereof against him…
1Opinion of the Court
Aikens J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The expressions in the statute, descriptive of the property of debtors, exempt from attachment and .execution, are to be understood in a qualified sense. Without such construction, no tools, arms, or árticles of household furniture would be exempted 5 for none of these can be said to be absolutely “ necessary for upholding life,” as people may subsist without them.
It becomes the duly of the Court, then, to define what the neces* *70^or toe article is, which the Legislature contemplated should eDtitle a debtor hold ^ against the process of his creditor.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dow v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1835
- Montague v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
- Dunlap v. EdgertonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858