Case Name: Riley A. Deming & Co. v. Joel Lull
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1845-02
Citations: 17 Vt. 398
Docket Number: 
Parties: Riley A. Deming & Co. v. Joel Lull.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 398–403

Head Matter:
Riley A. Deming & Co. v. Joel Lull.
In an action brought by a creditor against a sheriff, for neglect of duty, in not attaching, as the property of his debtor, certain property designated, in which the defence set up by the sheriff is, that the property did not belong to the debtor, but to a'third person, and it appeared, on trial, that such third person had made a conditional sale of the property to the debtor, it was held, that the declarations of the debtor, made while he wras in possession of the property, that the property belonged to him, and evidence that these declarations were known to the vendor, and that he, with such knowledge, also affirmed that he had sold the property to the debtor, were not admissible as evidence on the part of the plaintiff.
Trespass on the Case against the defendant, as sheriff of Windsor County, for the default of his deputy, Ephraim Ingraham, Jr., in not attaching certain property, which he was directed by the plaintiffs to attach, as the property of one John H. Leland, on a writ of attachment in their favor against said Leland. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury.
On trial the defence set up was, that the property in question did not belong to John H. Leland, but to one Aaron P. Leland, and the evidence, on the part of the defendant, tended to show a conditional sale of the property by Aaron P. Leland to John H. Leland, and, on the part of the plaintiff, that John H. Leland, for about twenty months next succeeding said sale, was in possession of said property, using it in all respects as his own, which was known to Aaron P. Leland.
The plaintiffs then offered evidence tending to prove, that, while John H. Leland was in possession of the property, he publicly and openly called the property his own, and offered to accompany this with evidence that Aaron P. Leland had knowledge of these declarations being made by John H. Leland, and that Aaron P. Leland had himself said, that he had sold the said property to John H. Leland ; — all which testimony was objected to by the defendant, and was excluded by the court.
The plaintiffs then offered evidence, tending to show, that, after the property had been delivered by Aaron P. Leland to John H. Leland, and while the same was in the possession of the said John H., Aaron P. Leland said that he had sold the property to John H. Leland, and that he called it said John’s property; to which evidence the plaintiff also objected, and it was excluded by the court.
The case, in all other respects, was substantially the same with that of Hutchinson et al. v. Lull, ante, page 133.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Exceptions by plaintiffs.
O. Hutchinson for plaintiffs.
L. Adams for defendant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hebard, J.
This action is case against the sheriff, for the neglect of his deputy, in neglecting and refusing to attach certain prop erty on a writ in faVor of the plaintiffs against John H. Leland, The defence is, that the property was not liable to be attached as the property of John H. Leland. The legality of that defence has been established by repeated decisions; and the principal question, now, is in relation to the admissibility of the sayings of Aaron P. Leland and John H. Leland.
We think that these declarations Were inadmissible, in the first place, because they were entirely immaterial. They did not tend to prove a different state of facts from those insisted upon by the defendant. It was claimed by him that there was a conditional sale of this property by Aaron P. Leland to John H. Leland; and these sayings were not inconsistent with that fact. In the next place, they were the sayings of persons who were disinterested, and who might, therefore, be witnesses; — and that being so, their testimony, under oath, would the be better evidence. These sayings were no part of the res gesteo. It is not with the possession of personal property, as with real estate.
The case goes upon the ground, that John H. Leland had never any attachable interest in the property, and therefore his possession was of no importance.
Judgment affirmed.