¶1The officer offered to prove by parol testimony, that he' had • made demand on the execution, and had posted the hay; but no,t allowed, because he is to be justified by his return in anr action brought against him, unless it is falsified; but in an *527action, brought against the purchaser under him the case would be otherwise, for he has no power over the officer’s return, and may prove by other evidence that the estate was legally sold.
1 Root 526
Grant v. Shaw
Decided February 15, 1793
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1793-02-15
Action of trover for twelve tons of hay. The defendants plead severally not guilty. Issue to the jury.
Decided 1793-02-15