Cannon v. Sipples
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Trespass, for talcing and carrying away personal property; brought to the Superior Court in the county of Fairfield, and tried to the jury upon the general issue, with notice of a defence under a replevin process, before Minor, J. Yerdict for the plaintiff, and motion for a new trial by the defendants for errors in the rulings and charge of the court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The defendants seek to justify the trespass complained of in this case, by virtue of the process under *506which they claim that the acts charged were done. What was that process, and how far, if at all, is it a justification, are the questions presented for our determination. The process is a copy of the form found in our statutes (Gen. Statutes, pages 79, 80,) for the replevin of goods and chattels unlawfully detained otherwise than by attachment. The writ is in favor of Sipples, one of the defendants, and against Cannon, the present plaintiff, and Alfred A. Heath. Newman, one of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Allyn v. MatherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
- Luddington v. PeckSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Hayden v. ShedMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
3Cited by1 opinion
- Osgood v. CarverSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1875