Day v. Sweetser
Supreme Court of Vermont
ACTION on the case for an escape. General issue pleaded, and the pleadings closed to the Court, The plaintiff declared, That on the 23d of September, 1794, he purchased out a writ of attachment against one Josiah Farnum, in which he declared upon a promissory note made to him by Farnum for the sum of 113 dols. 84 cts. and interest, which writ was made returnable to Chittenden County Court, February term, 1795. That he delivered the writ to Damon, constable of Hartland,…
Read the full summary
ACTION on the case for an escape. General issue pleaded, and the pleadings closed to the Court, The plaintiff declared, That on the 23d of September, 1794, he purchased out a writ of attachment against one Josiah Farnum, in which he declared upon a promissory note made to him by Farnum for the sum of 113 dols. 84 cts. and interest, which writ was made returnable to Chittenden County Court, February term, 1795. That he delivered the writ to Damon, constable of Hartland, Windsor County, to serve and return ; who, on the 6th day of December, 1794, served the same by arresting the body of Farnum,…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
On perusal of the files at our chambers, we noticed that the defendant Sweetser was not sheriff at the term of rendering the final judgment, nor ever after, having gone out of office on the 1st December, 1796. A question may arise whether he could be answerable for the safe keeping of a prisoner within the County gaol after his commission had expired. Certainly he could not, if he had regularly delivered over such prisoner under the keys, to his successor in office. How this was, does not appear; but as the Court are with the defendant on the two points made, it will not be necessary to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Mangana's Admx. v. FranzoniSupreme Court of Vermont · 1950