Brown v. Chickopee Falls Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of replevin for certain window sashes, doors and boxes of glass, attached on a writ of attachment, in favour of the present defendants, against Samuel Whitmarsh. The defendants pleaded, that the goods in the plaintiff’s declaration mentioned, were not, at the time they were attached, or at the time of suing out said writ, the proper goods and estate of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
This was an action of replevin for certain window sashes, doors and boxes of glass, attached on a writ of attachment, in favour of the present defendants, against Samuel Whitmarsh. The defendants pleaded, that the goods in the plaintiff’s declaration mentioned, were not, at the time they were attached, or at the time of suing out said writ, the proper goods and estate of the plaintiff. On this issue the cause was tried, at Hartford, September term, 1843, before Waite, J. In the latter part of the summer of 1840, Samuel Whitmarsh, who then resided in Jamaica, W. I., and was a partner in, and…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
The goods in question were attached, by the defendants, as the property of Samuel Whitmarsh. The plaintiff caused them to be replevied; and a question arises, whether upon the facts, as he claims them to be, he can sustain his action of replevin.
*90By the law of this state, as settled by the decision of our courts, this action will lie only where cattle have been distrained, or personal property has been attached. Watson v. Watson, 9 Conn. R. 141. Watson v. Watson. 10 Conn. R. 76. And in the latter case, until the revision of our statutes in 1821, that remedy was not extended to a person who was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Meriden Britannia Co. v. WhedonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1862
- Fleet Bk. v. Czaplicki, No. Pjr Cv-91-0702261s (Nov. 7, 1991)Connecticut Superior Court · 1991