Tucker v. Wells
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, in four counts. The first count was upon a contract, made by and between the parties, on the twenty-seventh day of May, 1830. The second count was upon another contract, made on the fifteenth day of December, 1829. The third and fourth counts were for work and labor and for money paid, laid out and expended. The defendant pleaded, 1, non-assumpsit, and 2, thesta tute of limitations.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, in four counts. The first count was upon a contract, made by and between the parties, on the twenty-seventh day of May, 1830. The second count was upon another contract, made on the fifteenth day of December, 1829. The third and fourth counts were for work and labor and for money paid, laid out and expended. The defendant pleaded, 1, non-assumpsit, and 2, thesta tute of limitations. The replication to said second plea, was, in substance, that> at the time when the causes of action, mentioned in the declaration, accrued to the plaintiff, the defendant went out of this state, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
— The question, in this case, arises upon the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s replication to the defendant’s plea in bar. The statute of limitation does not run on a demand where the debtor has “ known property within this state, which can, by the common and ordinary process of law, be attached,” though such debtor shall reside without this state. The plaintiff has replied, that the defendant had no property, known to him, which could, by the common and ordinary process of law, be attached. Had issue been taken on this replication, if would…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wheeler v. BrewerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Farnham v. ThomasSupreme Court of Vermont · 1884