18 Vt. 457 | Vt. | 1846
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The principal question raised in this case, and the only one necessary to be considered, is, whether the plaintiff, by his alleged distreining of the property, for which the action is brought, created a lien upon the property, and continued it, until the taking and conversion of the property by the defendant.
The plaintiff having legal rate bills for taxes against the defendant, and warrants empowering him to collect the same, if by his proceedings, as detailed in the bill of exceptions, he created a valid lien upon the property and continued the same; then the decision of the county court was clearly wrong. It has been held by this court, that, to constitute an attachment of personal property, it is necessary that the officer should, either by himself, or his servant, take and maintain the actual custody and control of the property. Such was the language of the court in Lyon v. Rood, and it is believed, that the same doctrine is equally applicable to a distress for non
We are therefore entirely satisfied with the judgment of the county court, and the same is affirmed.
