The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.The law of the subject of the exemption of horses from attachment and execution is sufficiently propounded, developed, and illustrated in Hickok v. Thayer, 49 Vt., Webster v. Orne, 45 Vt., and Mundell v. Hammond, 40 Vt., for all practical purposes to be served in the present case. It is sufficient, therefore, to say that the horse in question, as it is set forth in the exceptions, was not exempt.
Judgment affirmed.