Coffrin v. Smith
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass and Trover for a quantity of hay, straw, and oats. The facts in the case, which were agreed on, are stated in the opinion. On trial the plaintiff claimed to recover only for the hay.
Read the full summary
Trespass and Trover for a quantity of hay, straw, and oats. The facts in the case, which were agreed on, are stated in the opinion. On trial the plaintiff claimed to recover only for the hay. At the June Term, 1878, Caledonia County, the court, Ross, J., presiding, rendered judgment for the defendant, to which the plaintiff excepted. contended that as at the time the defendant attached the hay it was under valid attachment by the plaintiff, the defendant’s attachment was void, and that it made no difference that the property was attached by lodgment of copy in the town clerk’s office, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dunton, J.
' The plaintiff, as deputy sheriff, on the 3d day of October, 1876, attached upon a writ in favor of Darling & Ricker, against one R. Gr. Beattie, the property in question, consisting of hay and oats in the straw, by leaving a copy of said writ and attachment in the town clerk’s office in Ryegate, the town wherein said property was taken.
On the 29th day of November following, the defendant, as deputy sheriff, upon a writ in favor of D. H. and T. Gr. Beattie against the same debtor, attached a quantity of straw, the same hay described in said…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Farmers State Bank of Lake Mills v. HammondSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927