Rice & Danenbaum v. Courtis
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass for a quantity of dry goods, and a horse, sleigh and harness. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, at the' March Term, 1859, — Bennett, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Trespass for a quantity of dry goods, and a horse, sleigh and harness. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, at the' March Term, 1859, — Bennett, J., presiding. On trial it appeared that the property in question, on the 17th of December, 1856, and previous to that time, was owned by William Cane and Marcus Cane, and was then in the possession of the latter at Vergennes and New Haven, in this State, he being a peddler, and being then engaged in peddling the goods in Vermont, and using the horse, harness and sleigh in that business. On that day William Cane and Marcus Cane, who were…
1Opinion of the Court
Redeield, Ch. J.
The main question involved in this case is the same as that just decided in the case of Hanford v. Paine and trustee. But there is here the further question, whether any change of possession is requisite in order to put property in this State, when assigned for the benefit of creditors by an act done legally out pf the State,, beyond the reach of the process of our courts against the assignor.
The only ground upon which it is urged that such a change of possession is required in order to perfect the assignment when made out of the State is, that this is a rule of policy…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Taylor v. BoardmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Jones v. TaylorSupreme Court of Vermont · 1857
- Whitney v. LyndeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
- Haskill v. AndrosSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832
3Cited by12 opinions
- Quarl v. AbbettIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Hallgarten v. OldhamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Ames Iron Works v. WarrenIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Weider v. MaddoxTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Cobb v. BuswellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.