Towne v. Marshall
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for a horse. Facts found by the court. The horse was taken by the defendant, a deputy sheriff, on a writ of attachment against the plaintiff, and sold. It was required for actual use by the plaintiff in his business of selling goods by sample, as a commercial traveller, although it had never been so used, and was but four years old. The court held that the animal was éxempt, from attachment, and the defendant excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The horse was exempt from attachment, if required for farming or teaming purposes, or other actual use. G. L., c. 224, s. 2. This was a question of fact, which has been determined at the trial term in favor of the plaintiff. Somers v. Emerson, 58 N. H. 48 ; Parshley v. Green, 58 N. H. 271; Rice v. Wadsworth, 59 N. H. 100; Richards v. Hubbard, 59 N. H. 158; George v. Fellows, 59 N. H. 206; Cutting v. Tappan, 59 N. H. 562; Hall v. Nelson, 59 N. H. 573 ; George v. Fellows, 60 N. H. 398; Jaquith v. Scott, 63 N. H. 5. The evidence was sufficient to justify the finding.
Exception overruled.
Allen,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Somers v. EmersonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876
- Hall v. NelsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- Cutting v. TappanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- Parshley v. GreenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1878
- Richards v. HubbardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.