Legal Opinion · Dissent

Skinner v. Watson

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 15, 1832Published

This was an action of ejectment for one fourth of an acre of land being a part of lot no. 13 in the town of Hydepark, and drawn to the original right of Roger Enos jr. being the first division of lots in said town. Plea not guilty.

Read the full summary

This was an action of ejectment for one fourth of an acre of land being a part of lot no. 13 in the town of Hydepark, and drawn to the original right of Roger Enos jr. being the first division of lots in said town. Plea not guilty. In addition to the evidence, which the plaintiffs bad given to the jury on the trial, they offered a copy of a judgement of the county court for the county of Orleans, in June term, 1820, in favor of the plaintiffs against Jacob P. Hadley for damages and costs, and an execution upon said judgement, and levy upon the land in question on the 2d day of August, 1820.…

1DissentWilliams, J.

I do not view this subject in the same manner as it is viewed by my brethren, and feel compelled to dissent from the decision which has just been made.

In passing a title by the levy of an execution, a strict compliance with the statute in every particular is required. The returns of officers setting off real estate on execution have been severely criti-cised, both in this, and other states, where property is transferred in this way, much beyond what I have thought a just regard to the rights of creditors and debtors required. It has nevertheless always been considered, that the statute must…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hubbard v. DeweySupreme Court of Vermont · 1827
  2. Stevens v. BrownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1830

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API