Clark v. Lathrop
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass for false imprisonment. The defendants jointly pleaded two special pleas in justification-The first plea set forth that the plaintiff had been duly elected and qualified constable and collector of Chelsea for the year 1854; that a tax was legally voted on the list of that year, and with a legal warrant was put into his hands for collection ; that he proceeded to collect the same, and was delinquent in paying over to the proper authorities; and further set out the…
Read the full summary
Trespass for false imprisonment. The defendants jointly pleaded two special pleas in justification-The first plea set forth that the plaintiff had been duly elected and qualified constable and collector of Chelsea for the year 1854; that a tax was legally voted on the list of that year, and with a legal warrant was put into his hands for collection ; that he proceeded to collect the same, and was delinquent in paying over to the proper authorities; and further set out the proceedings for, and the regular issuing of, an extent against him, under which, after due demand, he had been committed…
1Opinion of the Court
Poland, J,
I. The defendants, by pleading a special justification of the trespass and imprisonment, admit their liability unless their plea shows a sufficient legal answer.
All having joined in the same pleas, they must show a good justification for all, or else they are good for neither. These are familiar rules of pleading given in all the books on that subject.
Conceding that the facts set forth in the pleas furnish a gQ.Qd *142answer for Lathrop, the constable, who committed the plaintiff upon the extent, they are no defence to the others, for the pleas ■do not attempt to connect them with the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson v. FlemingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re HackettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881