Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Vt. 484

Strickland v. Martin

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 15, 1851

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1851-03-15

Assumpsit upon a promissory note. The officers return upon the writ was in these words; — “ Then by virtue of this writ, to me “ directed, I attached one horse and harness as the goods and “ chattels of the within named defendant, and delivered him a copy “ of this attachment and a list of the articles so attached by me.” The defendant pleaded in abatement, that no true and attested copy of the writ, with the officer’s return thereon indorsed, together with a list of the…

Decided 1851-03-15

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, J.

¶2The return of the officer, in this case, is in the precise words of the statute, and we think is sufficient. In practice, the copy left in service of a writ of attachment, when personal property is attached, contains a copy of the officer’s return usually; and whether this is not the practical construction given to the statute it is not necessary now to inquire. As the return is made a'part of the plea, we must look into the return ; and it is not necessary, in such case, for the plaintiff to reply the return by way of estoppel upon the plea, when it contains any thing inconsistent with the return. We must decide upon the return, as it is; and that, in this case, is sufficient.

¶3We think, from the exceptions, it sufficiently appears, that, when the plea in abatement was adjudged insufficient, the defendant interposed no farther defence, and, in effect, consented to have judgment entered up for the plaintiff on his claim, without objection ; and that judgment is affirmed.

/23/vt/484 · .json · Public domain