Langdon v. Dyer
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated March 31, 1840, for § 129,69, payable to Francis Slason, or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The writ issued against the goods and chattels of the defendant, and, for want thereof, against his body, and was served upon the defendant by attaching his property.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated March 31, 1840, for § 129,69, payable to Francis Slason, or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The writ issued against the goods and chattels of the defendant, and, for want thereof, against his body, and was served upon the defendant by attaching his property. The defendant pleaded in abatement, in substance, that, by the laws of this state, the plaintiff was not entitled to have a writ issue, upon the note in suit, against the body of the defendant. To this plea there was a general demurrer and joinder. The county court decided that the plea…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Collamer, J.
The form for the writ of attachment was fixed by statute, and has never been changed. The statute of 1838, which exempted the body from arrest on contracts made after January 1, 1839, did not change the form of the writ, but qualified the mode of its service. It was long since holden that the writ of attachment, when served as a summons, was good as such. So, too, when served as an attachment of property, as in this case, it must be good as such ; for this was serving it according to its terms, when the other was not. In the case of Cleft…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Roy v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- Bowman v. StowellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Hayden v. Caledonia National BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
- Graves v. SeverensSupreme Court of Vermont · 1865