Fairfield v. Hall
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of ejectment brought to the county court, where the defendant pleaded in abatement, for that the writ was served by J. Bradley, deputy sheriff, who was a rated inhabitant of the town of Fairfield. To which the plaintiff demurred.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment brought to the county court, where the defendant pleaded in abatement, for that the writ was served by J. Bradley, deputy sheriff, who was a rated inhabitant of the town of Fairfield. To which the plaintiff demurred. The county court rendered judgment that the writ abate, to which the plaintiff excepted, and the cause passed to this court for revision. — The office of sheriff is one and indivisible, and though he may act by deputy, yet the acts of the deputy are, in contemplation of law, the acts of the sheriff.— Walson on Office of Sheriff 23, 24 — L. L. No.…
1Opinion of the Court
■ The opinion of the court was delivered by
Coleamer, J.
It was decided in the case of Weston vs. Coulston, (Wm. Bla.) that a sheriff could not serve a latitat in any case in which he was so far interested that he could not empannel a jury. It is obvious, from our whole statutes, that it was clearly intended that all writs should be served by indifferent, that is, disinterested persons. Where the sheriff is interested, the writ is to be directed to the bailiff, and where a deputation is permitted, it is required to be that of an indifferent person. The only remaining question is, was the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shaw v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Lyman v. Town of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849