Bowman v. Town of Barnard
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass on the Case, for the official default of Lucius Freeman, constable of the town of Barnard, in not keeping certain pearlask, attached by him upon a writ in favor of the plaintiff against Joseph B. Danforth and Moses Montague. Plea, the general issue and trial by jury. On trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence the original writ in his favor, against Danforth and Montague, and the officers return thereon.
Read the full summary
Trespass on the Case, for the official default of Lucius Freeman, constable of the town of Barnard, in not keeping certain pearlask, attached by him upon a writ in favor of the plaintiff against Joseph B. Danforth and Moses Montague. Plea, the general issue and trial by jury. On trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence the original writ in his favor, against Danforth and Montague, and the officers return thereon. The writ bore date, March twenty-second, 1848, and it appeared from the return, which was signed by Lucius Freeman, as constable, that it was served March twenty-second, A. D. 1848, by…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Isham, J.
The object of this suit, is to recover damages which the plaintiff claims to have sustained by the neglect of one Lucius Freeman, elected as constable of that town on the 7th of Márch, 1848.
We learn from the case, that a writ was issued by the plaintiff against J. B. Danforth and others, on which a quantity of pearl-ash was attached by Freeman, as constable. It is not disputed in the case, but that a judgment was duly rendered in the suit upon which the attachment was made. That the property attached, was duly charged on the execution, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland & Washington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Treasurer of the State v. MannSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
- Town of Weston v. SpragueSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882
- Langdon v. Rutland & Washington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1857