1 Brayt. 91
Decided July 1, 1819
Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1819-07-01
<p>WHERE an officer has neglected to return a writ, in an action on note, and is suecj for iiis oeglwct, he may in his defence, impeach the note, as having been fraudulently obs tamed of the original defendants.</p> <p>In such action the officer may give in evidence, mitigation of damages, that the original defendants are within thp reach of process, and responsible. *</p>
Decided 1819-07-01
¶1The Court decided — That the officer ought to have been permitted to impeach the note, and that the evidence hp offered for that purpose, ought to have been admitted.
¶22. That the evideuce offered in mitigation of damages ought also to have been admitted.
¶3Judgment. That there is error.
¶4See Assumpsit 4. Bail 1, 2. Ejectment 2, 3. Commission. Fraud. Highways 2, 3. Landlord and Tenant 2, Patent flight. Pauper Cases 2, 3, 9. Judgment 2.