Morris v. Hyde
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of trover, for a mare, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty, with notice in writing that defendant attached the same as the property of one Abel Willson.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trover, for a mare, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty, with notice in writing that defendant attached the same as the property of one Abel Willson. Gn the trial by the jury in the county court, the plaintiff’s gave evidence tending to prove, that on the sixth day of March 1835, they in good faith purchased the mare of said Abel Wilson and applied the price on debts due the plaintiff’s from Wilson bona fide, and that the plaintiff ’sthen delivered the mare to a Mr. Walter to keep for the plaintiffs. That Walker took the mare to his own house. This was on Friday in…
1Opinion of the Court
*356The opinion of the court was delivered by
Phelps, J.
The rule which requires -a substantial visible change of possession, in order to enable the purchaser of a chattel to hold it against the attaching creditor of the vendor, is too well settled in this State, by repeated adjudications, to admit of further discussion.
The possession taken, must be such as will indicate to the world at large the change of ownership. A mere temporary change, if the property revert immediately into the possession of the vendor, is not sufficient.
In this case, we are of opinion, that the temporary possession of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Doyle v. StevensMichigan Supreme Court · 1856
- Reynolds v. BeckMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Ward v. CampSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893
- Foss v. TowneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- Rogers v. VailSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844