Allen v. Edgerton
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of trover for certain goods, wares and merchandise- The defendant justified the taking under, and by virtue of, a wrft of execution in favor of one Benjamin Knower against one Ira Beefy, wh’o had’ formerly owned the goods, and of whom tiie plaintiff claimed to have purchased them.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trover for certain goods, wares and merchandise- The defendant justified the taking under, and by virtue of, a wrft of execution in favor of one Benjamin Knower against one Ira Beefy, wh’o had’ formerly owned the goods, and of whom tiie plaintiff claimed to have purchased them. The plaintiff recovered a verdict in the county court, and exceptions were taken to some decisions and the charge to the jury ancf the cause was brought to this Court for a hearing on said exceptions. The facts slated in the exceptions,as attempted to be proved, so far as important to the points…
1Opinion of the Court
After argument,
Hutchinson, C. J.,
(after stating the case,) pronounced, the opinion of the Court. — I am inclined first to dispose of the exception to the decision of the court, rejecting the testimony, offered by the defendant, to show, that M’Daniels had the property of Seely in his possession, when he paid the debt to the bank. We consider,that this testimony was correctly rejected; for nothing in the case shows, that the plaintiff had any means or power, to compel an appropriation of that property to relieve his liability ; nor that M’Daniels ever undertook to pay, or paid, the bank debt…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Flanagan v. WoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Hall v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
- Mills v. WarnerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Cooley v. HatchSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924