McDonald v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Replevin for property attached; brought to the City Court of the city of New Haven, and tried to the court on the general issue and a special plea in bar, before Peck, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and motion in error by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
This is an action of replevin. The defendant is a constable of the town of New Haven, and attached and held the property only by virtue of a writ of attachment against Edward McDonald. The plea in bar sets up this fact as a defense. The court below held that it was not a defense and rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The case comes before this court by a motion in error.
The only question we need to consider is, whether an action of replevin can be maintained against an officer for property attached by him.
We think it cannot. The action of replevin is regulated wholly by statute. Previous to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bowen v. HutchinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1847
- Hathaway v. St. JohnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1850
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bishop v. GulickHawaii Supreme Court · 1889