Gibson v. Jenney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Trespass for taking one swine, the property of the plaintiff. At the trial in the Circuit Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff proved the taking of the swine, which had been butchered but not cut up, and that he, at that time, owned or possessed no other swine. The defendant was a deputy sheriff, and seized the swine by virtue of an execution, in his hands, issued against the said Gibson.
Read the full summary
Trespass for taking one swine, the property of the plaintiff. At the trial in the Circuit Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff proved the taking of the swine, which had been butchered but not cut up, and that he, at that time, owned or possessed no other swine. The defendant was a deputy sheriff, and seized the swine by virtue of an execution, in his hands, issued against the said Gibson. The court instructed the jury that the property thus taken was exempted from attachment and execution by virtue of the statute of 1805, c. 100; and the plaintiff having obtained a verdict in con formity to…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
The question presented in this case is more curious than difficult; for, if we are to be governed at all by the manifest intention of the legislature in making the exemption of a swine from the liability to attachment, or execution, we must give the exemption effect, in the present instance.
What could have been intended but the sustenance of a poor family, by this exemption ? To give the strict construction contended for, on the part of the defendant, would be to convert the intended benefit into an injury; for the swine would be protected until it became fit for food, and then be at the…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Peyton v. DesmondCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Rowell v. KleinIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Laslie v. Gragg Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Westfall v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- McGonigle v. AtchisonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.