Eames v. Stevens
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Error, brought to reverse a judgment of the common pleas, recovered on the first Tuesday of October, 1851. The action was trover, and was' brought by Stevens in. the common pleas, against Eames and Tuttle, the plaintiffs in error, for a' joint conversion of the property set forth in the declaration. Eames and Tuttle pleaded, severally, the general issue.
Read the full summary
Error, brought to reverse a judgment of the common pleas, recovered on the first Tuesday of October, 1851. The action was trover, and was' brought by Stevens in. the common pleas, against Eames and Tuttle, the plaintiffs in error, for a' joint conversion of the property set forth in the declaration. Eames and Tuttle pleaded, severally, the general issue. They were, however, tried together, and the jury returned a verdict against them in the following form: “ In this case the jury find that the said Eames and the said Tuttle are guilty in manner and form as the plaintiff: hath alleged, and…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
The first error is not well assigned. In an action of .trover the body is not exempt from arrest. The power to arrest in this action has not been changed by our statute abolishing imprisonment for debt, and it remains as at common law. It is immaterial, therefore, whether a defendant be arrested on mesne process or not; the execution-. may run against the body, and an arrest may be made upon ■ it, however the service of the original writ may have been.
The second assignment is equally untenable. It does not appear by the record, or by any bill of exceptions filed, that the plaintiffs in error…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Livingston v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Pangburn v. RamsayNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Cummings v. PrudenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Dougherty v. DorseyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1815
- Proprietors of the Kennebeck Purchase v. BoultonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Story v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900