Soper v. Sumner
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was trespass for a pair of oxen and' one yoke, tried by jury in the County Court. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove that on the 3d day ofDecember 1830', and for some time previous thereto, he owned and possessed the property in question, as part oían estate on which he was administrator— and proved that on the day aforesaid, he hired' out the same to one Robert Clark, by. a written contract of that date which was read' in evidence, and is as follows : “…
Read the full summary
This was trespass for a pair of oxen and' one yoke, tried by jury in the County Court. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove that on the 3d day ofDecember 1830', and for some time previous thereto, he owned and possessed the property in question, as part oían estate on which he was administrator— and proved that on the day aforesaid, he hired' out the same to one Robert Clark, by. a written contract of that date which was read' in evidence, and is as follows : “ Ree’d. Bristol Dec. 3d, 1830, of Henry Soper, one pair of Staggs, Yoke, and Cart, being the Staggs, Yoke and Cart,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Williams, J.
It appears in this case that the plaintiff was the owner of the property, for the taking of which this suit is brought, that he had hired it to one Clark for a given time which had not expired when it was taken by the defendants, and that at the time of the grievance complained of, the same was in the actual custody and possession of Clark. On these facts it is very evident that the plaintiff 'cannot maintain this action of trespass.
To maintain the action of trespass it is necessary that the plaintiff should have the possession of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Skiff v. SolaceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Batchelder v. WarrenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847