Kingsbury v. Pond
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was an action of trespass For breaking- and entering the plaintiff’s close, in Surry, and taking and driving away fifteen sheep of the plaintiff. The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts; At the time, when the supposed trespass was committed, the defendant was a deputy sheriff, and had in his hands an execution against one W. Baxter, with directions to levy the same on certain sheep of said Baxter.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass For breaking- and entering the plaintiff’s close, in Surry, and taking and driving away fifteen sheep of the plaintiff. The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts; At the time, when the supposed trespass was committed, the defendant was a deputy sheriff, and had in his hands an execution against one W. Baxter, with directions to levy the same on certain sheep of said Baxter. He proceeded to the pasture of Baxter, in Surry, where the sheep were sup* posed to be ; but Baxter, to prevent the seizure of the sheep, sent several…
1Opinion of the Court
By ¡he court,
It is a well settled principle of law, that, mi trespass quare clausum Jregit, a justification of the entry will cover the whole declaration. Taylor vs. Cole, 3 D. & E. 292. But admitting, in this case, that the defendant, had ⅜ right to enter into the plaintiff’s close, for the purpose of seizing Baxter’s sheep, on what ground can he justify the entry for the purpose of taking the plaintiff’s sheep ? It might deserve consideration, whether the defendant could not enter to take Baxter’s sheep. Hammond’s N. P. 166—169.—Cro. Eliz. 329, 759.-5 Coke 93.
But as the sheep of Baxter had…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Harris v. GillinghamSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1832
- Chellis v. StearnsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851