Walworth v. Farwell
Supreme Court of Vermont
Ejectment. To the plaintiff’s writ the defendants pleaded in abatement. To the defendants’ plea the plaintiff demurred. Join-der on demurrer, and trial by the court, June term, 1868, Peck, J., presiding. Judgment pro forma, that the plea in abatement. is sufficient, that tbe writ abate and that the- defendants recover their costs. Exceptions by the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Ejectment. To the plaintiff’s writ the defendants pleaded in abatement. To the defendants’ plea the plaintiff demurred. Join-der on demurrer, and trial by the court, June term, 1868, Peck, J., presiding. Judgment pro forma, that the plea in abatement. is sufficient, that tbe writ abate and that the- defendants recover their costs. Exceptions by the plaintiff. The defendants’ plea in abatement is as follows : “ Arid now the said defendants, by their attorney, C. H. Benton, come and defend the wrong and injury when, etc., and say that the said plaintiff’s said writ and declaration ought to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Peck, J.
The plea in abatement, that the writ was served only by George H. Walworth, an indifferent person, and that he also made the writ, is attempted to be supported by extending the statutory prohibition upon sheriffs and deputy sheriffs against making writs, to persons who are deputized by the authority signing the writ, to serve the same. It is difficult- to learn from the plea whether it is aimed at the writ or the service; whether the pleader goes on the ground that the writ is invalid because it was añade by the person who served it, or on the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Winchell v. PondSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. DrewSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878