Washburn v. Hammond
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. The writ was returnable before the County Court, December Term, 1852. The defendant filed his plea in abatement, setting forth, “ that “said writ was served on the defendant at Reading, in the county “■of Windsor, on the 12th day of May, 1852, by one Samuel Cady, “ who was not then and there authorized, according to the laws of “ this State, to serve said writ upon this defendant in any way or “ manner whatever, as appears by said writ, and the return there- “…
Read the full summary
Book Account. The writ was returnable before the County Court, December Term, 1852. The defendant filed his plea in abatement, setting forth, “ that “said writ was served on the defendant at Reading, in the county “■of Windsor, on the 12th day of May, 1852, by one Samuel Cady, “ who was not then and there authorized, according to the laws of “ this State, to serve said writ upon this defendant in any way or “ manner whatever, as appears by said writ, and the return there- “ on, and that said writ was never served on this, defendant at any “ other time, nor by any other person whatever, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rgdeield, Ch. J.
It has always been considered, that the justice form of authorizing one to serve a writ, would not confer authority to serve a County Court writ. The justice form is given for justice writs, and is made sufficient, by statute, for the purpose for which it was given. But it omits almost all the essential requisites of an authority to serve writs, required by statute. It does not state the want of a proper officer, or even that the person is indifferent.
This defect appears upon the face of the process, and may be taken advantage of by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bliss v. Connecticut & Pas. Rivers RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
3Cited by2 opinions
- Village Creek Homeowners Assn. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- Howard v. WalkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866