Jaquith v. Scott
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Replevin for a horse. Plea, the general issue, and a brief statement that the horse was attached as the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the horse was exempt from attachment, under Gen. Lawrs, c. 224, s. 2, and this was the only question in dispute. Facts found by the court. The horse was attached November 28, 1882. Previous to the attachment the plaintiff owned a grocery store, and used the horse in that business and as his family driving horse.
Read the full summary
Replevin for a horse. Plea, the general issue, and a brief statement that the horse was attached as the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the horse was exempt from attachment, under Gen. Lawrs, c. 224, s. 2, and this was the only question in dispute. Facts found by the court. The horse was attached November 28, 1882. Previous to the attachment the plaintiff owned a grocery store, and used the horse in that business and as his family driving horse. In June, 1882, the plaintiff was sued and his stock of goods attached, and sold at auction July 10, 1882. The plaintiff did not…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The principal question is, whether there was any evidence in the case upon which it was competent to find that the horse was required by the plaintiff for farming or teaming purposes, or other actual use (Gen. Laws, c. 224, s. 2); and this question turns upon the proper construction of the statute.
To hold that a horse is not exempt unless it is required for actual use at the very instant of the attachment, would practically nullify the statute: the horse would be liable to attachment at the end of every day’s work. To hold that the horse is exempt for the reason merely that at some indefinite…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cutting v. TappanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
3Cited by1 opinion
- Towne v. MarshallSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1887