Haskill v. Andros
Supreme Court of Vermont
Action of trespass for seizing and carrying away the plaintiffs cow. It appeared that the cow in question, was the only one the plaintiff had, and that the defendant had taken her in the capacity of an officer, by virtue of a writ of attachment at the suit of a creditor.
Read the full summary
Action of trespass for seizing and carrying away the plaintiffs cow. It appeared that the cow in question, was the only one the plaintiff had, and that the defendant had taken her in the capacity of an officer, by virtue of a writ of attachment at the suit of a creditor. The plaintiff was a native of this state, but, at the time the debt was contracted, on which the attachment was made, and for more than a year before, and at the time of said attachment, resided with his family at Stanstead, in the province of Lower Canada. The cow was kept and used, at the time of the attachment, at the…
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
The plain-tift brings this action to recover the value of a cow, which the defendant has taken from him by virtue of an attachment and execution. The taking is confessed. It is admitted, that it was the only cow of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff, at the time of the attachment and levy of the execution thereon, resided in the province of Lower Canada. The only question is, whether the cow was, on that account, liable to be taken in execution.
The legislature from principles of public policy have thought proper to exempt from execution certain articles of personal property, and, from the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Wright v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1886
- State Ex Rel. Lankford v. CollinsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Himmel v. EichengreenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. MaltbySupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
- Dow v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1835
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.