Atwood v. DeForest
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a case agreed upon by the parties, without action, and submitted to the superior court, under the statute of 1848. Slat. 109, 10. §211. ⅛ The* facts were these. On the 24th of October, 1848, Edward W. Atwood and Levi Crouch were manufacturing gerniah-siiver spectacles; ,#thé partnei^mp having commenced* on the 21st of June previous.
Read the full summary
This was a case agreed upon by the parties, without action, and submitted to the superior court, under the statute of 1848. Slat. 109, 10. §211. ⅛ The* facts were these. On the 24th of October, 1848, Edward W. Atwood and Levi Crouch were manufacturing gerniah-siiver spectacles; ,#thé partnei^mp having commenced* on the 21st of June previous. Atwood was a spectacle-maker, by trade; and Crouch, before he entered into the partnership, was a blacksmith, by trade, having no other knowledge of spectacle-making, than what he had acquired since the forming of the partnership. He had the necessary…
1Opinion of the Court
Hinm/uv, J.
The question submitted to us, in this case, is, whether certain articles of personal property, which were attached by the defendant, DeForest, by virtue of process in favour of the defendant, Lathrop, were exempt from being taken on execution, on the ground that they were respectively implements of the trades of Atwood and Crouch, ns whose they were taken. Crouch was a blacksmith, working at his trade, a portion of the time ; but occasionally, at some branch of the manufacture of spectacles ; and Atwood was a spectacle-maker. None of the blacksmith tools were taken by the officer ;…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Betz v. MaierCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1896
- Flaxman v. Capitol City Press, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Seeley v. GwillimSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
- Bond v. TuckerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
- Enscoe v. DunnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876