Fisher v. Cobb
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was trespass for a horse — issue of fact closed to the court by consent. It was admitted by the parties, that tlie horse in question belonged to one William Clark. — That the plaintiff and defendant were both deputies under the sheriff of Orleans, and that each bad, in April last, a legal writ of attachment against Alexander Willson, the former owner, by which they had attempted to attach and hold said horse as his property.
Read the full summary
This was trespass for a horse — issue of fact closed to the court by consent. It was admitted by the parties, that tlie horse in question belonged to one William Clark. — That the plaintiff and defendant were both deputies under the sheriff of Orleans, and that each bad, in April last, a legal writ of attachment against Alexander Willson, the former owner, by which they had attempted to attach and hold said horse as his property. The value of the horse was also admitted to be twelve dollars and fifty cents. The only additional evidence was the testimony of said William Clark, who testified,…
1Dissent
Royce, J.,
dissenting. — The decision now made recognizes the right of the plaintiff to recover the value of the property sued for. It is on this ground that I would express my dissent to the judgment just pronounced, though I am not fully satisfied that a right of recovery exists to any extent. Clark, it is true, has recovered for the property against the plaintiff; but as the present defendant was no party to that action, and does not even appear to have had notice of it, he is not affect-. ed by it. He has the same defence as if that suit had not yet been instituted. It is therefore…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sanderson v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1826