Waterbury v. Lockwood
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of trespass vi et armis, for taking and destroying a horse, a pair of fetters, and a halter. The writ was dated July 18th, 1808. It was admitted, that the property of the goods was in the plaintiff; that the defendant was collector of the society rate of the first society in Stamford ; that as such, he held several rate or tax bills duly assessed against the plaintiff, and lawful warrants to collect the same.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of trespass vi et armis, for taking and destroying a horse, a pair of fetters, and a halter. The writ was dated July 18th, 1808. It was admitted, that the property of the goods was in the plaintiff; that the defendant was collector of the society rate of the first society in Stamford ; that as such, he held several rate or tax bills duly assessed against the plaintiff, and lawful warrants to collect the same. The defence relied on was, that the property was duly taken by virtue of said warrants, and due care and diligence used in preserving and…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
(after stating the case.) The first point made on this motion is, that the superior court improperly admitted in evidence the warrant in the hands of . the defendant, and his endorsement thereon, showing that he took the horse, &c. by virtue of those warrants, and advertised the same for sale, &c. To the admission , of this evidence it was objected, that it furnished no justification, because the history of the subsequent proceedings of the officer, therein detailed, manifested such irregular conduct and neglect of duty, attended with a loss of,the property, as rendered him still liable to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Ballard v. NoaksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1839