Rockwood v. Collamer
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass, for taking one yearling heifer, two calves and five swine. Plea, not guilty, with notice of special matter. Issue to the country. On the trial in the county court, it appeared that, on the ninth day of July, 1839, Reuben Rockwood owned the property in question and being indebted to the plaintiff, sold it, on that day, to the plaintiff, for its fair value, at the house of Samuel H. Holly, and Holly agreed to keep it for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Trespass, for taking one yearling heifer, two calves and five swine. Plea, not guilty, with notice of special matter. Issue to the country. On the trial in the county court, it appeared that, on the ninth day of July, 1839, Reuben Rockwood owned the property in question and being indebted to the plaintiff, sold it, on that day, to the plaintiff, for its fair value, at the house of Samuel H. Holly, and Holly agreed to keep it for the plaintiff. In the spring of 1839, the said Reuben took a farm of said Holly, for the ensuing year, under a parol agreement that Holly should stock the farm with…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
It becomes necessary again to reiterate the principle of law, so often recognized and decided, that a sale of personal property, not attended and accompanied with a visible, substantial change of possession, is void and inoperative against the creditors of the vendor. The debtor, Reuben Rockwood, lived on the farm of Samuel H. Holly, raised the cattle, to recover for the taking of which this action was brought, and received swine, in exchange for other property, which had also been kept on the farm. All the property in controversy had…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Golden v. CockrilSupreme Court of Kansas · 1862
- Bindley v. Martin Bros.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
- Martin v. HillNew York Supreme Court · 1851