Carty v. Drew
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass and trover for a harness, brought to the city court of Burlington. Trial by the court, Tyler, J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. The court rendered judgment for the defendant to recover his costs; to which the plaintiff excepted. cited Laws of 1866, No. 39, § 1; Leavitt v. Metcalf, 2 Yt. 342 ; Mundell v. Hammond, 40 Yt. 641; Allen v. Thompson, 45 Yt. 472. cited Laws of 1866, swpra, and Fry v. Canfield, 4 Yt. 9.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
The defendant, as sheriff, attached plaintiff’s harness. The plaintiff claims it was exempt from attachment under the statute. The plaintiff was a butcher, furnished and distributed meat to his customers in the city of Burlington, used and needed the harness in his business, and had no other.
The statute, p. 923, Gen. Sts., has ever been liberally construed for the benefit of poor debtors. When a class of property is exempt, such as “ suitable apparel, bedding, tools, arms, and articles of household furniture ; such as may be necessary for…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Haas v. ShawIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- Butner v. BowserIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Kelley v. McFaddenIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Roberts v. Frank Carrithers & Bros.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- Grimm v. NaugleWashington Supreme Court · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.