Lull v. Matthews
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indebitatus Assumpsit for wood-sold and delivered, and for wood bargained and sold. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, May Term, 1844, — Hebard, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Indebitatus Assumpsit for wood-sold and delivered, and for wood bargained and sold. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, May Term, 1844, — Hebard, J., presiding. On trial the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to prove, that one Brooks, as deputy sheriff, on the nineteenth day of April, 1842, by virtue of a writ of attachment in favor of Daniel P. Wheeler against James W. Evans, returnable to the then next term of Windsor county court, attached a quantity of wood then upon the farm on which Evans lived ; that on the sixth day of May, 1842; Brooks, in pursuance of an agreement…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Kellogg, J.
It is very obvious, that whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover, upon the evidence detailed in the bill of exceptions, must depend upon the question whether the property in the wood, by virtue of the sale by Brooks, the plaintiff’s deputy, passed to and vested in the defendant; for if it did, then manifestly the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the charge of the county court was correct. The sale of the wood was not upon execution; but if it had been, or if the sale were entitled to all the effect of a sale upon exe*326cution, while…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Griffith v. FowlerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Morey v. McGuireSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832
3Cited by10 opinions
- Crahan v. Town of ChittendenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Hastings v. PerrySupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Langdon v. PaulSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Hagar v. BrainerdSupreme Court of Vermont · 1872
- Town of Bristol v. United States ex rel. Small Business AdministrationDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 1970
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.