Legal Opinion
DeRochemont v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided January 5, 1909PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
1. The fact that the Boston & Maine Railroad is not party to this proceeding is an answer to the defendants’ first position. It will be time enough to consider whether that corporation had an interest in the car which the sheriff was bound to respect, when it sues him for attaching the property. Southern Ry. Co. v. Brown, (Ga.) 63 S. E. Rep. 177.
2. It was decided in Boston etc. R. R. v. Gilmore, 37 N. H. 410, that sections 1 and 2, chapter 184, Revised Statutes (P. S., c. 220, ss. 1, 2), authorized the attachment of freight cars which were not in actual use, as well as other property…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Kidd v. PearsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- SHERLOCK v. Alling, AdmInistratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Leloup v. Port of MobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Standard Steel Works Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
- Martin v. One Chevrolet TruckSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1945