Cook v. Loomis
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Trover. The defendant, a constable of the town of Colchester, attached the horse, of the plaintiff as the property of one Hazard Wells, by virtue of three writs of attachment against him.
Read the full summary
Trover. The defendant, a constable of the town of Colchester, attached the horse, of the plaintiff as the property of one Hazard Wells, by virtue of three writs of attachment against him. Two days afterwards, Wells, acting as the agent of the plaintiff and at his request, procured one Hammond to receipt the property to the officer for the purpose of delivering it to him;—and the same was on the same day received by Wells from Hammond; he receiving it on behalf of the plaintiff, being authorized to do so. On the trial of the case the defendant requested the court to charge the jury that the…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
This was an action of trover, in which the plaintiff claimed to recover the value of his horse taken by the defendant, by virtue of several attachments, as the property of one Hazard Wells. The horse was first placed in the hands of Joseph C. Hammond, who gave to the defendant a receipt for it, in which he promised to redeliver it to the defendant on demand, and then Hammond delivered it into the hands of Weils, who was the agent of the plaintiff to receive it, and, being authorized so to do, did receive it back on behalf of the plaintiff; and the question is whether upon these facts the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Baldwin v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1838
- Curtis v. WardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1850
3Cited by8 opinions
- Regan v. N. York and N. England R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Daggett v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Trumbull v. HewittSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
- Stone v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- Mississippi Mills v. J. Meyer & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.