Drew v. Davis
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass for taking two cows. The defendants were selectmen of the town of Danville for the year 1834, and, in their official capacity, assessed the town taxes for that year. In the assessment was included a sum which the town had voted for the purpose of building a jail in said town. The plaintifF, who was a rateable inhabitant of Danville, was assessed his propórtion of said tax.
Read the full summary
Trespass for taking two cows. The defendants were selectmen of the town of Danville for the year 1834, and, in their official capacity, assessed the town taxes for that year. In the assessment was included a sum which the town had voted for the purpose of building a jail in said town. The plaintifF, who was a rateable inhabitant of Danville, was assessed his propórtion of said tax. The tax-bill, with an accompanying warrant, was placed in the hands of the constable of said town for collection, who, upon the plaintiffs refusal to pay his tax, distrained and sold the cows in question, to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Phelps, J.
The only question reserved in this case is, as to the rule of assessing damages; — the plaintiff insisting that he is entitled to the value of the property taken, at al) events, and the defendants claiming a deduction for the amount of the legal tax satisfied by the distress.
The defendants rely on the case of Lamb v. Day, 8 Vt R. 407. In that ease the judgment and execution were regular and valid, and there was, beyond question, a valid subsisting debt. There was nothing irregular in the levy or sale, which, aside from the unlawful use of the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Wall v. TrumbullMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Bucknall v. StoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Board of Commissioners v. AdlerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1922
- Hardenburgh v. Kidd, Marsh, & ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Thorndike v. Inhabitants of CamdenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.