
    Boyden S. Sleeper v. Thomas Pollard.
    
      Change of possession. Attachment.
    
    The defendant bought of W. a bay of hay in a barn on a farm which W. occupied and carried on by his hired man, and removed a part of it, and requested W.’s hired man to take care of the remainder for him, which the hired man, with the knowledge of W., agreed to do. The rest of the barn was occupied with other hay and properly of ~W. Held, that there was not a sufficient change of possession of that part of the bay of hay that remained to protect it from attachment by W.*s creditors.
    Trespass for a quantity of hay. Plea, the general .issue; trial by jury, January Term, 1856, — Underwood, J., presiding.
    The plaintiff) as deputy sheriff, attached the hay in question as the property of William Woodman upon a writ against him in fa-favor of George Sleeper. The hay was in a barn pn the Dwight farm, so called, in Vershire, which Woodman carried on during the year of the attachment by one Kelley; who lived on the farm at the time of the attachment, and worked on it by the month. Woodman cut the hay on the farm, and "put part of it in a bay upon some old hay cut on the farm the year previous, which he had bought of Dwight.' Kelley remained on the farm, as Woodman’s hired man, after the hay was cut, and gathered in the other crops, such as potatoes, corn and apples, Woodman himself having gone to New York just before the attachment.
    It appeared that on the 17th of August, 3854, Woodman sold said bay of hay to the defendant Pollard, and gave him a bill of sale of it, and that the defendant paid, at the time, $8 per ton, the weight being estimated by measurement; and the testimony tended to show that Pollard drew away a part of the hay before the attachment, and a part after; and that when Woodman sold the hay he told the defendant it might remain in the barn until he was ready to draw it away; and that, in the presence of Woodman, the' defendant requested Kelley to take care of it for him, and that Kelley said he would. It appeared that, after the sale, and afte? the attachment, Woodman had other hay and 'other property, a horse, cart, plow, and other crops, as before stated, and a yoke of oxen and a lot of mining tools, on the farm and in and about the • bam.
    The defendant requested the court to charge the jury that if they found that Kelley, at the time of the sale, agreed with the defendant to take care of the hay for him until he should draw it away, and that this was known to Woodman, that there was such a-change of possession that the hay was not liable to attachment by Woodman’s creditors, and that the defendant was entitled to recover. But the court declined so to charge, and decided that the. evidence did not show such a change of possession as would protect the hay from attachment, and instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for that part of the hay, and that only, which was removed by the defendant after the attachment. To this charge of the court, and to their refusal to charge as requested, the defendant excepted. Yerdict for the plaintiff.
    
      Peck 2$ Golly for the defendant.
    
      A. M. Dickey for the plaintiff.
   Redeield, Ch. J.

By the court, It does not appear to us that there was any such change of possession, in the present case, as the law requires to protect the property from attachment.

It was in the barn of the debtor, or one in his possession, or that of his hired man, which is his possession in law; and it remained there until the attachment, nothing being done to indicate a change of ownership, except to request the hired man to take care of it for the purchaser, he still continuing in the employ of the debtor. This, certainly, could not be regarded as a visible, substantial change of possession.

The* case seems to us, in principle, and in many of its leading facts, very similar to that of Beattie v. Robin, 2 Vt. 181, and Judd v. Langdon, 5 Vt. 231.

Judgment affirmed.  