Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Vermont Volume 36

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1865 Excerpt: ...the contrary, and to show that the plaintiff possession was joint or concurrent with his father, was all susceptible of explanation consistently with an exclusive Stanley v. Bobbins. possession in the plaintiff containing all the legal requisites for the purpose in question, and that there was evidence tending so to explain such acts. The defendant therefore was not entitled to the instruction asked. The defendant made a similar request particularly as to the two cows, which was properly refused for the same reason. The remaining objection relied on arises under exceptions to the charge as given. No question is made, and none could properly be made, but that in the course of the charge the court laid down correctly all the. general principles applicable to a change of possession necessary to protect personal property from attachment. The charge is very full and clear in the enunciation of these principles, and pointed in the application of thera to the particular features and aspects of the case as presented by the evidence. It is to certain paragraphs in the charge by way of illustrating and applying a general principle to the case, that the defendant's counsel now object as erroneous. The court charge the jury as to the necessity of a change of possession, and what was necessary to constitute such change, and constitute such possession in the plaintiff as the law required; and among other things, tell the jury that it was necessary that there should have been an open and substantial change of possession as between the plaintiff and E. B. Stanley, in order to protect the property from attachment and execution on the debts of E. B. Stanley, and that it was necessary the plaintiff's possession should have become and remained exclusive in the plaintiff, and n...