Spaulding v. Orcutt
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trover. Heard on the report of a referee, March Term, 1883, Washington County, Redeield, J., presiding. Judgment on the report for the defendant. The referee found that the note for which the chattel mortgage was given was payable on demand; but that neither of the sureties had paid the note, and that their property had not been attached in consquence of it. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
Trover. Heard on the report of a referee, March Term, 1883, Washington County, Redeield, J., presiding. Judgment on the report for the defendant. The referee found that the note for which the chattel mortgage was given was payable on demand; but that neither of the sureties had paid the note, and that their property had not been attached in consquence of it. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The form of the action is of little matter, as the case was referred. Granite Co. v. Farrar, 53 Yt. 85. The defendant did nof legally attach the property, having neglected to pay the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Yeazey, J.
The plaintiffs were sureties upon a promissory note for one Doras L. Spaulding, and held as security therefor a chattel mortgage upon one undivided half of all the furniture in a hotel. One Milissa Warner owned the other half, and was in possession of the whole, and operated the hotel. Having an overdue debt against Doras 1., she caused his half to be attached by the defendant as deputy sheriff, on a writ in her favor against Doras L. The defendant did not remove the property, but announced, that he had attached it and left it in charge of a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Frost v. KelloggSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Gassett v. SargeantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Welch v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- Burton v. KennedySupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
- Goodrich v. ChappellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916