Luce v. Hoisington
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass for taking an ox. Heard on demurrer to the defendant’s plea, December Term, 1882, Taft, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled.
Read the full summary
Trespass for taking an ox. Heard on demurrer to the defendant’s plea, December Term, 1882, Taft, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled. As to turning out the ox for attachment the plea alleged: And that afterwards, to wit, on the same 15th day of March, A. D.1880 this defendant, as constable aforesaid, went with said writ to the place where the said plaintiff, Napoleon Luce, was then stopping in said Hart-land, and where the plaintiff then had in his possession said ox in said declaration mentioned, and this defendant then and there exhibited said writ to said plaintiff, Napoleon Luce, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Ross, J.
The only defect in the defendant’s plea in bar now insisted upon is that it is double, in that it sets forth two full defences to the action. If this be so, it is bad on demurrer.
The statute exempting certain personal property from attachment and levy of execution, R. L. s. 1556, provides that property shall be exempt “ unless turned out to the officer to be taken on the attachment or execution by the debtor.” The plea alleges that the defendant was at the date of the alleged trespass an officer, having a writ in his hands for service against…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Torrey v. FieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
3Cited by1 opinion
- Town of Andover v. Town of Mount HollySupreme Court of Vermont · 1886