Cox v. Johns
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment, for a piece of land in Huntington. Plea, not guilty. Issue to the court. Upon the trial, in the county court, the plaintiff offered in evidence the copy of a record of a writ of attachment in his favor against one Kimball Marshall, a judgment and writ of execution thereon and a levy of said execution upon the land in question..
Read the full summary
Ejectment, for a piece of land in Huntington. Plea, not guilty. Issue to the court. Upon the trial, in the county court, the plaintiff offered in evidence the copy of a record of a writ of attachment in his favor against one Kimball Marshall, a judgment and writ of execution thereon and a levy of said execution upon the land in question.. The return of the officer, endorsed upon the writ of attachment, was in substance as follows ;— “ Chittenden County, ss. ) Then by virtue of this writ Huntington, Aug. 10, 1837. 5 and by direction of the plaintiff therein, I attached, as the property of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
— The only question, presented for our consideration in this case, is in regard to the effect of the attachment in favor of the plaintiff against Kimball Marshall. Is it operative to create a lien on the lands in question, as against the title of the defendant, which is derived by deed from Marshall subsequent to the attachment, but prior to the levy of the plaintiff’s execution ?
When real estate is attached, it is necessary by the act of 1797, that the officer serving the writ should leave with the town clerk of the town, in which the lands…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McKenzie v. RansomSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Spaulding v. CahillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1986