Heacock v. Walker
Supreme Court of Vermont
THE nature of this cause, the evidence, and the-opinion of the Court, may be amply collected from the charge to the Petit Jury, delivered by the Chief Judge: Gentlemen of the Jury, The plaintiff demands of the defendant a sum in damages for having, as he alleges in his declaration, on the 26th day of March, 1799, with force and arms, at Charlotte, in this County, took from his possession a certain gelding horse, the plaintiff’s property, of the value of 100 dollars.
Read the full summary
THE nature of this cause, the evidence, and the-opinion of the Court, may be amply collected from the charge to the Petit Jury, delivered by the Chief Judge: Gentlemen of the Jury, The plaintiff demands of the defendant a sum in damages for having, as he alleges in his declaration, on the 26th day of March, 1799, with force and arms, at Charlotte, in this County, took from his possession a certain gelding horse, the plaintiff’s property, of the value of 100 dollars. To this declaration the defendant hath pleaded that he is not guilty. The issue hath been joined, and you are to find by your…
1Opinion of the Court
*340Upon the law arising from these facts, which the Court will deliver to you, you will find your verdict.
In order to maintain trespass for a chattel, the plaintiff must shew that the property was in him at the time of the taking; you have therefore to inquire, whose was the property of this horse on tii® 26th of March, 1799.
We learn from the witnesses, that in the month of January preceding, the property was incontestibly in the defendant by bona fide purchase.
No person in a legal view can be divested of his property except by his own contract, or the operation of law.
Here it is apparent the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Griffith v. FowlerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846