Hunt v. Viall
Supreme Court of Vermont
In this case, which came to the county court by appeal, the defendant pleaded in abatement, that the officer, who served the writ, did, before service, erase from the writ the name of the place set for the trial of the suit, and. insert the name of another place. The plaintiff replied, that this alteration was made by the officer at the request of the plaintiff’s agent, after the writ had been made by an attorney. To this replication the' defendant demurred.
Read the full summary
In this case, which came to the county court by appeal, the defendant pleaded in abatement, that the officer, who served the writ, did, before service, erase from the writ the name of the place set for the trial of the suit, and. insert the name of another place. The plaintiff replied, that this alteration was made by the officer at the request of the plaintiff’s agent, after the writ had been made by an attorney. To this replication the' defendant demurred. The county court, December Term, 1847, — Hall, J., presiding, —adjudged the replication sufficient. Exceptions by defendant. cited Rev.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hall, J.
It was held in Winchell v. Pond, 19 Vt. 198, that sec. 26 of chap. 11 of the Revised Statutes, declaring a writ tobe void, if made by a sheriff, or his deputy, applied also to writs made by constables. In the present case the writ was made by an attorney of this court, but was afterwards, before service, altered by the constable, by inserting a different place for holding the court; in the same town; and the question is, whether this alteration was a making of the writ, within the meaning of that statute.
In construing a statute the object is to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Winchell v. PondSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
3Cited by3 opinions
- Conway v. SeamonsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- State v. DrewSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878
- Osgood v. NorrisSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850