Case ID: nh_64/html/0460-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Towne v. Marshall.
    A horse required for actual irse by the owner in his business of selling goods by sample, as a commercial traveller, is exempt from attachment.
    Trover, for a horse. Facts found by the court. The horse was taken by the defendant, a deputy sheriff, on a writ of attachment against the plaintiff, and sold. It was required for actual use by the plaintiff in his business of selling goods by sample, as a commercial traveller, although it had never been so used, and was but four years old. The court held that the animal was éxempt, from attachment, and the defendant excepted.
    Barnes, for the plaintiff.
    
      C. W. Hoitt, for the defendant.
   Smith, J.

The horse was exempt from attachment, if required for farming or teaming purposes, or other actual use. G. L., c. 224, s. 2. This was a question of fact, which has been determined at the trial term in favor of the plaintiff. Somers v. Emerson, 58 N. H. 48 ; Parshley v. Green, 58 N. H. 271; Rice v. Wadsworth, 59 N. H. 100; Richards v. Hubbard, 59 N. H. 158; George v. Fellows, 59 N. H. 206; Cutting v. Tappan, 59 N. H. 562; Hall v. Nelson, 59 N. H. 573 ; George v. Fellows, 60 N. H. 398; Jaquith v. Scott, 63 N. H. 5. The evidence was sufficient to justify the finding.

Exception overruled.

Allen, J., did not sit: the others concurred.