Blake v. Hatch

Decided May 15, 1853

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1853-05-15

Trespass. Attachment of property, fyc. Where the plaintiff attached a quantity of starch, which was stored by the'debtor in the barn of a third person, under an agreement that said third person should have a lien upon the same for the security of a debt, as an officer by virtue of certain writs against the said debtor ; and at the time of said attachment the plaintiff did not move or take possession of the said starch, except by notifying said third person that he had attached it; it was held, that the plaintiff had not acquired any such property in the starch, as would enable him to maintain tres pass therefor, against one who subsequently attached and took possession of the same, on other writs of attachment. Property pawned, or mortgaged may be attached on trustee process, by payingthe amount for which said personal property is so held as security.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1896

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redeield Ch. J.

¶2It being expressly found in this case, that the plaintiff took no possession of the property which he professed to attaeh; and it not being of that class of property, upon which statutory, constructive attachments may be made, and it not being claimed, that the plaintiff bad any other property in the articles sued for, we cannot regard him as having acquired any such property in the things, as will enable him to maintain this 'action. What he did, has always been regarded as insufficient, to constitute an attachment. Lyon v. Rood cited in argument.

¶3Property pawned, or mortgaged, may nevertheless be attached, by trustee process, by paying the amount secured upon it.

¶4Judgment affirmed.