Swetland v. Stevens

6 Vt. 577
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedMarch 15, 1834
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 Vt. 577 (Swetland v. Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Swetland v. Stevens, 6 Vt. 577 (Vt. 1834).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Collameb, J.

— The statute provides, tyhen goods and chattels are attached, “ a copy of said attachment and a list of the articles attached, attested by the officer serving the same, shall be delivered to the party whose goods and chattels are so attached, or left at the house of his, her or their usual abode, as is directed in service of summons.” As to the service of summons, it is provided, that a true and attested copy thereof, with the officer’s return, shall be delivered to the defendant, or left at the house of his usual abode, with some person of sufficient discretion, or in such situation as the defendant will probably receive it-; and “ the manner of such service shall be particularly expressed in the return made by the officer.” Two things are fully provided by this statute ; first, the mode of service— and secondly, the mode of return. The present is a plea in abatement for an insufficient return. This court have, on several occasions, very fully expressed an opinion, that the return must show a legal service to have been made, or the writ would abate; and that delivering or leaving a copy is an essential part of the service in the attachment of goods, being the only mode provided for giving notice to the defendant, and without this the service is essentially defective. This plea is therefore not a pleading of the evidence instead of the fact, and therefore argumentative, as the plaintiff’s counsel insists ; for it is a plea in abatement for, defective return, and so directly alleges, and not for defect in service. If there can be any excuse for not leaving a copy, which does not appear by the return, the plaintiff might here have replied it. — Marvin vs. Wilkins, 1 Aik. Rep. 107 — Newton vs. Adams, 4 Vt. Rep, 437.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Clark & Freeman v. Patterson
58 Vt. 676 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1886)
Standley v. Arnow
13 Fla. 361 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Vt. 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swetland-v-stevens-vt-1834.