Hill v. Loomis
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Trespass for taking a cow at Colebrook on the 2d October, 1828. The defendant pleaded in bar, that, being a deputy sheriff, and having an execution against the plaintiff, he took the cow and sold her to satisfy the execution. The plaintiff replied, that he was, at the time of the taking, a resident at Colebrook, in this county, and that the cow was his only cow.
Read the full summary
Trespass for taking a cow at Colebrook on the 2d October, 1828. The defendant pleaded in bar, that, being a deputy sheriff, and having an execution against the plaintiff, he took the cow and sold her to satisfy the execution. The plaintiff replied, that he was, at the time of the taking, a resident at Colebrook, in this county, and that the cow was his only cow. The defendant rejoined, that the plaintiff was, at the time, a resident in Vermont, and not in this county, and concluded with a verification. To this the plaintiff demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer.
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
The rejoinder in this case is defective in substance. It is immaterial where the plaintiff resided. By the laws~of this state a man’s only cow is exempted from attachment, let him reside where he will.
Judgment for the defendant.
Young, for the defendant, then contended, that as the cow had gone to pay the plaintiff’s debt, that circumstance ought to be considered in assessing the damages. 3 N. H. Rep. 144; 6 Mass. Rep. 20.
But the court said, that, although in certain cases, the goods taken having gone to pay the debt of the plaintiff, that circumstance was considered in assessing…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Prescott v. WrightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Perkins v. ThompsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825
3Cited by1 opinion
- Moulton v. RobinsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853