Tilton v. Sanborn
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trovbr, for hay. The plaintiff, being a deputy of the sheriff, attached the hay as the property of Nathan A. & William F. Parker, described in the writ as late co-partners. Prior to the attachment, the defendant purchased the hay, leaving it in the barn where it was attached. Subsequent to the attachment he removed the hay. The referee found the sale fraudulent as against Parker’s creditors, and the defendant guilty.
Read the full summary
Trovbr, for hay. The plaintiff, being a deputy of the sheriff, attached the hay as the property of Nathan A. & William F. Parker, described in the writ as late co-partners. Prior to the attachment, the defendant purchased the hay, leaving it in the barn where it was attached. Subsequent to the attachment he removed the hay. The referee found the sale fraudulent as against Parker’s creditors, and the defendant guilty. The defendant claimed that four tons of the hay was exempt from attachment to each of the Parkers, and that the plaintiff acquired no title thereto by his attachment.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The case of Currier v. Sutherland, 54 N. H. 475, is authority that exempted property may, by the debtor, be sold in fraud of creditors. And when the title to exempted property has passed to another by sale, the proceeds in the hands of the vendee are not exempted from attachment by trustee process. Manchester v. Burns, 45 N. H. 482; Wooster v. Page, 54 N. H. 125. The benefit of exemption is given by the statute to the debtor, and not to another person to whom the debtor may have sold the property, and nothing is left to be inferred. Somers v. Emerson, 58 N. H. 48, 49.
The defendant purchased…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Somers v. EmersonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brookfield v. SawyerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895