Frothingham v. Howard
Supreme Court of Vermont
THIS was an action of debt, on bond, dated the 4th day of May, 1811, and executed by Howard, as principal, and Peters, as surety, to the plaintiffs, for the penal sum of one thousand dollars, conditioned as follows: “The condition of the above obligation is such; that, whereas, the said Elias Howard did, on the second day of May, instant, pray out a writ of replevin against the said John Frothingham, Samuel May, Arthur Tappan, and Henry D. Sewall; now'if the said Elias…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of debt, on bond, dated the 4th day of May, 1811, and executed by Howard, as principal, and Peters, as surety, to the plaintiffs, for the penal sum of one thousand dollars, conditioned as follows: “The condition of the above obligation is such; that, whereas, the said Elias Howard did, on the second day of May, instant, pray out a writ of replevin against the said John Frothingham, Samuel May, Arthur Tappan, and Henry D. Sewall; now'if the said Elias Howard shall prosecute his replevin to effect, at the county court next to be holden at North-Hero, within, &c. on the last…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Skinner, Ch. J.
There are two kinds of replevin recognized by our statute : one, where property is taken damage fasant, and impounded ; the other, where property is attached on mesneprocess; and the form of proceeding, as also the condition of the bond to be given in each case, is particularly pointed out. This action is in the common form of an action of debt, upon the penal part of a bond, executed by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Oyer having been demanded, the bond.is spread upon the record, with such condition, in substance, as is required by…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Driscoll v. PlaceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1872