Conant v. Bicknell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff. Plea — Non assumpsit. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, a Sheriff’s deputy, had an execution against Bicknell, in favour of one Woolston, a person residing abroad. The defendant counted out the money to satisfy the execution on the table, being £3,18s. 8d., and shoved it across the table to Conant, who thereupon endorsed the execution satisfied.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff. Plea — Non assumpsit. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, a Sheriff’s deputy, had an execution against Bicknell, in favour of one Woolston, a person residing abroad. The defendant counted out the money to satisfy the execution on the table, being £3,18s. 8d., and shoved it across the table to Conant, who thereupon endorsed the execution satisfied. Upon which Bicknell immediately laid hands on the money, and turned it out as the property of Woolston, on an' attachment in his favour against Woolston, and it was by…
1Opinion of the Court
It was held by the Court, that money, collected by an officer on an execution, cannot be attached out of his hands. On the receipt, the officer becomes a debtor to the plaintiff, not for the identical pieces of money, but for the sum.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Prentiss v. BlissSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832
- Adams v. LaneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
- McMeekin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1849