Garrett v. Patchin
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass. The defendant attached an iron shovel, spade, dungfork, three pitchforks, a scythe and snath, a potatoe hook, hog hook, common axe, broad axe, adz, hatchet and five augers belonging to the plaintiff, and all the articles of the kind which he owned, all which articles were worth ten dollars and thirty cents* It appeared that the plaintiff’s principal occupation or trade was shoemaking, but that he lived rather isolated and did his own mending or "tinkering” of…
Read the full summary
Trespass. The defendant attached an iron shovel, spade, dungfork, three pitchforks, a scythe and snath, a potatoe hook, hog hook, common axe, broad axe, adz, hatchet and five augers belonging to the plaintiff, and all the articles of the kind which he owned, all which articles were worth ten dollars and thirty cents* It appeared that the plaintiff’s principal occupation or trade was shoemaking, but that he lived rather isolated and did his own mending or "tinkering” of sleds, ox-yokes, &c. The only question presented was, whether the articles were or were not exempt-from attachment; and upon…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, Ch. J.
The question here is whether certain farming tools, as pitchforks, iron shovel, potatoe hook, scythe and snath, spade, dungfork and common axe; and certain other tools, as adz, hatchet, broad axe, augurs, are exempt from attachment.
The statute is, that “ such suitable apparel, bedding, tools, &c., as may be necessary for upholding life,” shall be exempt from attachment and levy of execution. The term necessary in this *250connection has been construed to mean convenient or useful, and that has been deemed convenient or useful which a man…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In Re AnselmDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1972
- Laurel Mills v. WardMississippi Supreme Court · 1924
- Rice v. WadsworthSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- Hooper, Tr. in Bankruptcy v. KennedySupreme Court of Vermont · 1927