Haughton v. Eustis
District Court, D. Vermont
On the 14th day of March, 1842, Eustis & Co. attached on mesne process the goods of Rice & Boardman. At the May term of Windsor county court, in which the suit, commenced by said process, was entered, judgment was recovered by the plaintiffs. On the 23d of June, execution was taken out on said judgment and levied on the goods thus attached.
Read the full summary
On the 14th day of March, 1842, Eustis & Co. attached on mesne process the goods of Rice & Boardman. At the May term of Windsor county court, in which the suit, commenced by said process, was entered, judgment was recovered by the plaintiffs. On the 23d of June, execution was taken out on said judgment and levied on the goods thus attached. On the 28th of said June, Haugh-ton and others procured from the district court of the United States, an injunction upon the sale of said goods on said execution, setting forth, by petition, as the ground of said injunction, that on the 15th day of said…
1Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON, Circuit Justice.
In the first place, there is no pretence of anything fraudulent in the proceedings of the attaching creditors. Their debts were bona fide, and have gone into judgment. Their attachment was made in good faith agreeably to the laws of the state, and before any act of bankruptcy by the debtors. They had, up to the service of the injunction, taken the steps required by the laws of the state to enforce the payment of their debts. Does the attachment in this case constitute a lien or security, within the meaning of the proviso in the second section of the bankrupt law, and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Pauley v. CauthornIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Vreeland v. BruenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1847