Cutting v. Tappan
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for a horse attached by the defendant, and claimed by the plaintiff as exempt. Facts found by a referee. Before February 10, 1879, the plaintiff used the horse in his staging business between New London and Bradford. February 9, he abandoned that business, and determined to seek other occupation.
Read the full summary
Trover, for a horse attached by the defendant, and claimed by the plaintiff as exempt. Facts found by a referee. Before February 10, 1879, the plaintiff used the horse in his staging business between New London and Bradford. February 9, he abandoned that business, and determined to seek other occupation. In the morning of February 10, he left the horse and other stage property in the care of an agent, and went in search of employment, intending to find work by which he could earn his living by teaming with this horse. Afterwards on the same day the horse was attached by the defendant. In a…
1Opinion of the CourtDoe, C. J.
The question is, whether the horse at the time of its attachment was required for the plaintiff’s actual use. G. L., c. 224, s. 2, § 12. On this question of fact there is evidence to be considered by the referee. Somers v. Emerson, 58 N. H. 48; Rice v. Wadsworth, ante 100; George v. Fellows, ante 206.
Report recommitted.
Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Somers v. EmersonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jaquith v. ScottSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1883
- Towne v. MarshallSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1887