Bowley v. Angire
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trover for twenty-one watches. The case was referred, and by the referee’s report the following facts appeared. The plaintiff, a constable, at the suit of one James, attached property of Albert Hodsden, consisting, among other thing's, of several watches, and the defendants receipted it. The suit in which said attachment was made was duly prosecuted to judgment, and the property attached charged in execution and by the plaintiff demanded of the defendants.
Read the full summary
Trover for twenty-one watches. The case was referred, and by the referee’s report the following facts appeared. The plaintiff, a constable, at the suit of one James, attached property of Albert Hodsden, consisting, among other thing's, of several watches, and the defendants receipted it. The suit in which said attachment was made was duly prosecuted to judgment, and the property attached charged in execution and by the plaintiff demanded of the defendants. The defendants delivered, to him three watches and the other property attached, and $100 in money, proceeds of sale of one watch sold…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
The first question presented by the report of the x’eferee is as to the admissibility as evidence of what transpired between the plaintiff and Hodsden and Buck at the time the receipt was executed and delivered.to the plaintiff. The benefit which the defendants claimed from the facts which that evidence *44tended to establish, was, to limit their liability to account, to the property described in the receipt which at that time belonged to Hodsden. In Spencer v. Williams et als. 2 Vt. 209, which was an action upon a receipt for property attached,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Spencer v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1828
- Parsons v. StrongSupreme Court of Vermont · 1841
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stannard v. TillotsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914