Stoyel v. Westcott
Supreme Court of Connecticut
In the Court below, THE declaration stated, that the plaintiff, on the 4th day of February, 1804, was legally deputed to serve a certain writ or process of attachment against Stoyel, in which Job Smith was plaintiff, demanding ¾ 800 damages, for a certain trespass alleged to have been committed by Stoyel ; that the writ was signed by Thaddeus Learned, Esq. a justice of the peace, and by him, and in his hand-writing, directed to the plaintiff, as an indifferent person ; that…
Read the full summary
In the Court below, THE declaration stated, that the plaintiff, on the 4th day of February, 1804, was legally deputed to serve a certain writ or process of attachment against Stoyel, in which Job Smith was plaintiff, demanding ¾ 800 damages, for a certain trespass alleged to have been committed by Stoyel ; that the writ was signed by Thaddeus Learned, Esq. a justice of the peace, and by him, and in his hand-writing, directed to the plaintiff, as an indifferent person ; that the plaintiff found Stoyel at Carder’s house, on the evening of the same day, levied the writ on his body, took him as…
1Opinion of the Court
Bv the Court., Amos Westcott jun. brought his action on the case against Isaac Stoyel and William Carder ; averring, that he was legally deputed to serve an attachment, which issued against Stoyel in favour of Job Smith, was signed by Thaddeus Learned, justice of the peace, and directed to the said Westcott as an indifferent person : that by virtue of the writ, he arrested the body of Stoyel, at the house of Carder ; and that Stoyel and Carder, with a fraudulent intent to rescue the said Stoyel from the custody of the said Westcott, and to procure him an opportunity to escape, proposed to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Armstrong v. AyresSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
- Del Chario v. Connecticut Co.Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1944
- Del Chario v. Connecticut Co.Connecticut Superior Court · 1944
- Mahurin v. HardingSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853
- People on rel. Ritterman v. KellyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1866