This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
C. H. Hill, versus H. Loomis
July 1, 1833 - Opinion
Case records
Open case page| Date | Record Text | Type | Party | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 1, 1833 | C. H. Hill, versus H. Loomis Current page | Opinion | Supreme Court | Reporter |
C. H. Hill, versus H. Loomis.
A roan’s only cow is exempted from execution by the Saws of this state, although he may reside in another state.
And in trespass for taking in execution the only cow of the debtor, he is entitled to recover the value of the cow, although the proceeds of the Sale of the cow have been applied in satisfaction of the execution.
Trespass for taking a cow at Colebrook on the 2d October, 1828. The defendant pleaded in bar, that, being a deputy sheriff, and having an execution against the plaintiff, he took the cow and sold her to satisfy the execution.
BY THE COURT, J.
The plaintiff replied, that he was, at the time of the taking, a resident at Colebrook, in this county, and that the cow was his only cow.
The defendant rejoined, that the plaintiff was, at the time, a resident in Vermont, and not in this county, and concluded with a verification.
To this the plaintiff demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer.
Stewart & Wells, for the plaintiff.
Young, for the defendant.
By the court. The rejoinder in this case is defective in substance. It is immaterial where the plaintiff resided. By the laws~of this state a man’s only cow is exempted from attachment, let him reside where he will.
Judgment for the defendant.
Young, for the defendant, then contended, that as the cow had gone to pay the plaintiff’s debt, that circumstance ought to be considered in assessing the damages. 3 N. H. Rep. 144; 6 Mass. Rep. 20.
But the court said, that, although in certain cases, the goods taken having gone to pay the debt of the plaintiff, that circumstance was considered in assessing the damages, yet they thought a different rule ought to be applied in this case. The provision exempting a man’s only cow from attachment was intended for the relief of the poor, and ought to be so construed as to give all which the legislature intended; and the value of the cow, at least, ought in all cases to be given in damages. There will then be no inducement to a creditor to take his debtor’s last cow.