Welch v. Clark
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass for taking a mare. Plea, not guilty and trial by Jul7- Upon the trial in the county court, the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove, that, at Barnston in Lower Canada, in March, 1836, he lent the mare in question to William C. Clark, to drive with another horse to Burlington, in Vermont; that said William C. having stopped for a few days at the inn of one Wheelock in Eden, said horses were there attached, by the constable of Eden, at the several suits, of…
Read the full summary
Trespass for taking a mare. Plea, not guilty and trial by Jul7- Upon the trial in the county court, the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove, that, at Barnston in Lower Canada, in March, 1836, he lent the mare in question to William C. Clark, to drive with another horse to Burlington, in Vermont; that said William C. having stopped for a few days at the inn of one Wheelock in Eden, said horses were there attached, by the constable of Eden, at the several suits, of one Lease, one Merriam, and the defendant, as the property of said William C.; that the defendant’s attachment was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett J.
— Can this action be Sustained upon the facts disclosed in this bill of exceptions? We think not. The court, in substance, charged the jury that if they found that the plaintiff and William C. Clark were tenants in common of the mare in question, the plaintiff could not recover. The general rule is, that one tenant in common cannot maintain trespass or trover against his co-tenant, because they have each an equal right to the possession of the chattel, and the law gives no action to the one dispossessed, because his right is not superior to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sanborn v. MorrillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1843
- Spaulding v. OrcuttSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
- State v. HunnerwardleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891