Bowen v. Hutchins
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of replevin, brought to recover certain property, claimed as the property of the plaintiff, which had been attached, by the defendant, as deputy of the sheriff of the county of Windham, by virtue of a writ in favour of Benjamin B. Knight and Lorenzo E. Brown of Providence, in the state of Rhode-Island, against Eli B. Gleason.
Read the full summary
This was an action of replevin, brought to recover certain property, claimed as the property of the plaintiff, which had been attached, by the defendant, as deputy of the sheriff of the county of Windham, by virtue of a writ in favour of Benjamin B. Knight and Lorenzo E. Brown of Providence, in the state of Rhode-Island, against Eli B. Gleason. The suit was brought to the superior court for the county of Windham, at the October term 1846, when the defendant, among other matters, pleaded in abatement, that the attaching creditors should have been made the defendants in the suit, instead of the…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
The only question arising in this case, is,whether the action of replevin should have been brought against the attaching creditors, instead of the officer who served the process in the original suit.
It has often been said, that this proceeding, which authori*552zes a person claiming property attached in suit between other parties, to replevy that property, is unknown to our common law, and is entirely given by a recent statute. The mode of proceeding, therefore, must depend upon the construction given to that act of the legislature. Brown v. Chicopee Falls Company, 16 Conn. R. 90. Fleet v.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Town of Norwalk ex rel. Fawcett v. IrelandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- Griffin v. LancasterMississippi Supreme Court · 1881
- McDonald v. HolmesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1877