Thibault v. Conn. Valley Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1907
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: THIBAULT v. CONNECTICUT VALLEY LUMBER CO.

67 A. 819

80 Vt. 333

THIBAULT

v. CONNECTICUT VALLEY LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Essex.

Oct. 5, 1907.

Exceptions from Essex County Court; William H. Taylor, Judge.

Action by Adelard Thibault against the Connecticut Valley Lumber Company. Defendant moved to dismiss the writ for want of proper service, and, its motion having been overruled, excepts. Affirmed and remanded.

The motion was: "And now comes the said defendant, by its attorneys, Dale & Amey, who appear specially in said cause for this purpose, and moves this honorable court to dismiss said cause, for that the service of the original writ therein is not a lawful service of said writ upon said defendant according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, as appears by the copy of record and appeal now on file in said court herein referred to." The officer's return, as amended, is: "At Bloomfield, in said county, this 30th day of June, A. D. 1905, I then served this writ, and on the 30th day of June I continued the service of this writ by attaching as the property of the within defendant five hogs now in the buildings owned and occupied by the Connecticut Valley Lumber Company, in Bloomfield, Vt., and on the same day I sent to the town clerk's office in said town of Bloomfield a true and attested copy of this writ, with a description of the property and estate so attached, with this my return indorsed thereon for record. And on the 30th day of June, at said Bloomfield, I delivered to L. Turcotte, known agent of the said defendant and a man of sufficient discretion to receive the same for the defendant, a like true and attested copy of said writ, with a list and description of property and estate so attached and this my return thereon indorsed."

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, and WATSON, JJ.

W. H. Blake, for plaintiff. Amey & Hunt, for defendant.

WATSON, J. It is sufficient for the disposition of the case that the motion to dismiss does not point out in what respect the service of the writ was defective. Nye v. Burlington & Lamoille R. E. Co., 60 Vt. 585, 11 Atl. 689.

Judgment affirmed, and cause remanded.