¶1This point then, that the officer in this case is liable to the debtor for the property taken, being established, it will follow, by legal consequence that the receiptsmen must be liable to the officer for it, and it would be unreasonable to subject the officer, who has done his duty to the action of the debtor and to cut him off from his remedy against the receiptsmen, especially as this has been long sanctioned by the decisions of law.
1 Root 381
Reed v. Tousley
Decided May 15, 1792
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1792-05-15
Two questions arise on this defense — 1st. Whether on these pleadings it appears that no oxen in fact were taken from the debtor, or delivered to or received by the defendants ; and if the contrary appears, then 2d. Whether the residue of the defense is sufficient or not.
Decided 1792-05-15