Sullivan v. Davis
Supreme Court of Vermont
Replevin for a horse. The case was referred, and the referee reported substantially as follows: The plaintiff, a laborer, working by the month at different places, but having his home with his father, who owned a small place of three or four acres in Rutland, and was in part dependent on the plaintiff for support, bought the horse in question in the fall of 1869, when it was a sucking colt, and kept it until it was attached by John Cain, on May 3, 1871, on a writ in his…
Read the full summary
Replevin for a horse. The case was referred, and the referee reported substantially as follows: The plaintiff, a laborer, working by the month at different places, but having his home with his father, who owned a small place of three or four acres in Rutland, and was in part dependent on the plaintiff for support, bought the horse in question in the fall of 1869, when it was a sucking colt, and kept it until it was attached by John Cain, on May 3, 1871, on a writ in his favor against the plaintiff. During the winter before the attachment, when the colt was coming two years old, the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.
The law of the subject of the exemption of horses from attachment and execution is sufficiently propounded, developed, and illustrated in Hickok v. Thayer, 49 Vt., Webster v. Orne, 45 Vt., and Mundell v. Hammond, 40 Vt., for all practical purposes to be served in the present case. It is sufficient, therefore, to say that the horse in question, as it is set forth in the exceptions, was not exempt.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rowell v. PowellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
- Prescott v. StarkeySupreme Court of Vermont · 1898