Wilds v. Blanchard
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of. trespass for two thousand bushels of charcoal, taken by the defendant. On the trial it appeared, that the plaintiff, as constable, on the 9th day of January, L834, had for service two writs of attachment against Hyman Holcomb and one against O. Holcomb, by virtue of which the plaintiff attached a quantity of coal. It was in a log pit, about half burned, owned and in the possession of said Holcombs.
Read the full summary
This was an action of. trespass for two thousand bushels of charcoal, taken by the defendant. On the trial it appeared, that the plaintiff, as constable, on the 9th day of January, L834, had for service two writs of attachment against Hyman Holcomb and one against O. Holcomb, by virtue of which the plaintiff attached a quantity of coal. It was in a log pit, about half burned, owned and in the possession of said Holcombs. The plaintiff left attested copies of said attachments in the town clerk’s office, according to law. It appeared that the plaintiff directed said Holcombs to take charge of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
Was the property in its then condition susceptible of attachment ? This question is not disposed of by the statute which permits an officer attaching charcoal to leave a copy in the town clerk’s office, which it is declared shall be effectual to secure the same against subsequent purchases or attachments. That statute only regulates or provides a mode or method of attachment; it creates no new subject matter, for it expressly provides the officer may remove the property. The question still returns, in what condition is property subject to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hale v. HuntleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1849