Hart v. Hyde
Supreme Court of Vermont
CASfr STATED'. This was an action of trespass, brought to recover the! value of a cooking, stove and pipe, which had been levied* upon and sold under an execution- in favor of Hyde against Hart. H-yde was'the purchaser of the stove at the Sheriff’s sale.
Read the full summary
CASfr STATED'. This was an action of trespass, brought to recover the! value of a cooking, stove and pipe, which had been levied* upon and sold under an execution- in favor of Hyde against Hart. H-yde was'the purchaser of the stove at the Sheriff’s sale. The stove had previously been; Used; by Hart as a cooking stove, & was his only stove-. About three months-previous to the attachment, Hart had temporarily suspended house-keeping, and placed the stove’ in the- possession’ of one Lewis, who was to keep it, and pay a reasonable rent for the use of it-, until it should be called for by Hart.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Phelps, J.
It is insisted that no act of the defendant appears in the case, which amounts in law to a trespass.— *331But we are all agreed, that the act of the Sheriff, in assur ruing the custody and control of the property, was clearly a trespass 5 and, if done by direction of the defendant, was a trespass in him. There was a literal talcing of the property — a seizure on the attachment, as also on the execution, and the placing it under the control of a third person to the exclusion of the plaintiff.
To constitute a trespass, it is not necessary that there…
2Cited by6 opinions
- In re Wright-Dana Hardware Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Dow v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1835
- Cox v. HallSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Dunlap v. EdgertonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Parketon v. PugsLeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.