Langdon v. Rutland & Washington Railroad
Supreme Court of Vermont
Debt upon a replevin bond taken of the defendants by Isaac Gibson, as constable of the town of Rutland, on the 16th day of May, 1854, upon the service by him of a writ of replevin in favor of the Rutland and Washington Railroad Company, to replevy property attached upon a writ against them in favor of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Debt upon a replevin bond taken of the defendants by Isaac Gibson, as constable of the town of Rutland, on the 16th day of May, 1854, upon the service by him of a writ of replevin in favor of the Rutland and Washington Railroad Company, to replevy property attached upon a writ against them in favor of the plaintiff. Plea, non est factum, and several special pleas denying that said Gibson was constable, or that he had any authority to serve ¡the writ of replevin, and that the bond taken by him was therefore invalid, &e. Trial by the court, March Term, 1856, — Pier* point, J., presiding. Upon…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Isham, J.
The case of Bowman v. Barnard, 24 Vt. 361, seems decisive upon the question raised on these exceptions. In *214that case it was held, that a constable derives his official authority from, his election to that office, and from the statute regulating his duties and defining his powers. The execution of a bond to the town for their indemnity is not regarded as a condition precedent to his right to execute those duties. The person so elected can lawfully discharge them until his office is vacated by the selectmen, on Ms refusal to execute a lond to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bowman v. Town of BarnardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852