Lunt v. Brown
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
The action was trespass for taking the plaintiffs’ mare, and the writ was dated June 10,1834. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with a brief statement, that as a deputy-sheriff, he took the mare, having attached the same on a writ in favor of J. Her-rin & al. against Israel Winn.
Read the full summary
The action was trespass for taking the plaintiffs’ mare, and the writ was dated June 10,1834. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with a brief statement, that as a deputy-sheriff, he took the mare, having attached the same on a writ in favor of J. Her-rin & al. against Israel Winn. The plaintiffs proved, that Winn applied to S. Lunt, one of the plaintiffs, in Feb. 1834, and wished him to purchase his mare ; that said S. Lunt thereupon agreed to purchase the mare for himself and J. Lunt, for fifteen dollars, and that this sum was paid by them to Winn, and the mare delivered to the…
1Opinion of the Court
After an adjournment, the opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Weston C. J.
Regarding the right of property, in them are in controversy, to have been in the plaintiffs, with a right of preemption only in Winn, as whose property she was taken by the defendant, the officer; the case finds, that by the agreement between the plaintiffs and Winn, the latter was to keep her until grazing time. She was taken by the officer in March, before the time of grazing. And this is the only proof of trespass, upon *239which the plaintiffs rely, to maintain their action. Trespass is a remedy afforded by law, for an…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Liberty Gravel & Sand Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Ward v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845