Trespass, for the caption and conversion of a wagon. The defendants justified under an attachment in July, 1.879. Facts found by a referee. The wagon was the only one owned by the plaintiff. He used it for ordinary family purposes, and in 1878 and 1879 he used the hind wheels in connection with a rack and other wheels to draw the hay cut on his farm to the barn, and in harvesting other crops.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1880-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1944
5 state decisions
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.
¶1
The question at issue was, whether the wagon, when attached, was exempt either as a farming tool, or a tool of the plaintiff’s occupation. This was a question of fact to be determined by the referee upon all the evidence, and the finding for the
*574
plaintiff was a finding of every material fact upon which the plaintiff’s right of recovery depended.
Allard
v. Hamilton, 58 N. H. 416;
Noyes
v. Patrick, 58 N. H. 618;
Rice
v. Wadsworth,
ante
100;
Richards
v. Hubbard, ante 158;
Gceorge
v. Fellows, ante 206.
