Preston v. Hicock
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trover for goods; tried at New-Haven, January term, 1833, before Peters, J, Originally, the goods in question were the property of Benjamin Stiles, On the 8th of February, 1832, they were attached, by two of the defendants, as officers, on suits in favour of sundry creditors of Stiles against him.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trover for goods; tried at New-Haven, January term, 1833, before Peters, J, Originally, the goods in question were the property of Benjamin Stiles, On the 8th of February, 1832, they were attached, by two of the defendants, as officers, on suits in favour of sundry creditors of Stiles against him. These officers, on the day of service, left with the debtor true copies of the writs by them respectively served, endorsed and attested as follows: “Derby, February 8th, 1832. Then, by virtue of the original Writ, of which this is a true copy, I attached, &c. [describing the…
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
The statute regulating the service of attachments, requires, that a copy of the writ and of the return, describing the estate attached, shall be left with the debtor, at least twelve days before the session of the court; and that the officer shall make his return forty-eight hours before said session. In this case, the officer made his return in proper time and manner; but the copy left is claimed to be insufficient, because it is not attested as a true copy of his return. The officer certifies upon it, that by virtue of the original writ, of which this is a true copy, he attached the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Brainard v. BushnellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
- State ex rel. Rice v. HarringtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Cross v. BarberSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1888
- Sanford v. NicholsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841
- The Frank G. FowlerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.