Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Vt. 546

Ives v. Strong

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided April 15, 1847

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1847-04-15

Trespass on the Case against the defendant, as slier iff, for the neglect of liis deputy, Samuel S. Kimball, in not collecting and… Held: in Turner v. Lowry, 2 Aik. 72, and in Hall et al. v. Brooks, 8 Vt. 485, that the plaintiff should recover the full amount of his execution ;— but in the first case the ground of the decision seems to have been, that the plaintiff had lost his lien upon the bail by the neglect of the officer; and in the latter case the court seem to…

Relies on Kidder v. Barker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1847-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1933

4 state decisions

201847185018601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*548The opinion of the court was delivered by

Davis, J.

¶2The recent case of Kidder v. Barker, 18 Vt. 454, recognizing an exception to the well established rule in this state, that, in actions on the case against sheriffs for not collecting or returning final process, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of the execution, must control the present case. The two cases are almost precisely the same, — at least so far as respects Alpha Allyn, the principal execution debtor. Assuming the facts, offered to be proved in respect to the other two debtors, to be true, as we must for the present purpose, there can be no question, but that the whole case falls within the admitted exception. The testimony offered in the county court, and excluded, should have been received.

¶3As this opens the case for trial, it becomes unnecessary to pass upon the objection raised against the regularity of the execution. The judgment of the county court is reversed, and the case remanded for trial, unless the plaintiff consents to take a judgment for nominal damages and costs; in which case the judgment, so modified, will be affirmed, with costs to the defendant in this court, to be deducted from the plaintiff’s costs.

¶4The plaintiff’s counsel declined taking a judgment for nominal damages, and the case was remanded.

/19/vt/546 · .json · Public domain