Mellen v. Moody
Supreme Court of Vermont
Replevin, brought in the county of Washington, for beasts impounded. The defendant pleaded two pleas in bar. 1. That in 1847 he was pound keeper in the town of Waterbury, and one Wright, August 2, 1847, impounded the beasts in question, which had been found in his inclosure doing damage, and that the defendant, as pound keeper, detained them in the pound, as by law he was bound to do, and in no other way, and that, from the time the beasts were impounded until they were…
Read the full summary
Replevin, brought in the county of Washington, for beasts impounded. The defendant pleaded two pleas in bar. 1. That in 1847 he was pound keeper in the town of Waterbury, and one Wright, August 2, 1847, impounded the beasts in question, which had been found in his inclosure doing damage, and that the defendant, as pound keeper, detained them in the pound, as by law he was bound to do, and in no other way, and that, from the time the beasts were impounded until they were taken from the defendant by the process in this suit, they were not discharged from the pound by Wright, or by operation of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It is evident, that the statute, in regard to the replevying of “ beasts distrained,” — Rev. St., chap. 30, — did not contemplate, that the writ would be brought against the pound keeper, but the impounder. The seventh and eighth sections contain provisions, in regard to the final disposition of such cases, which would be absurd, if the suit were to be against the pound keeper, to wit, if the plaintiff prevails, he shall have damage for the unjust' taking and detention of his beasts; and if the defendant, he shall have judgment for the damage done by the cattle, and any penalty…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Holden v. TorreySupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Eddy v. DavisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1862