Legal Opinion

Carpenter v. Turrell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 15, 1868PublishedCited by 39 opinions

Contract. The writ was dated and an attachment of goods and chattels was made July 30, 1867. On August 31,1867, the attachment was dissolved by bond under the Gen. Sts. c. 123, § 104. On February 27,1868, the defendants filed their petition in bankruptcy, and suggested on the record the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Read the full summary

Contract. The writ was dated and an attachment of goods and chattels was made July 30, 1867. On August 31,1867, the attachment was dissolved by bond under the Gen. Sts. c. 123, § 104. On February 27,1868, the defendants filed their petition in bankruptcy, and suggested on the record the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings. At the trial in the superior court, before Morton, J., without a jury, it was agreed that the defendants’ plea of the pendency of proceedings in bankruptcy might be taken as a plea of discharge in bankruptcy, and should have the same operation and effect as the…

1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.

This case must follow the decision in Loring v. Eager, 3 Cush. 188. The only difference in the facts is, that, in this case, but for the bond by which the attachment was dissolved, it would have been preserved by the provisions of the bankrupt act, and the plaintiffs might have had the restricted judgment which was rendered in Bates v. Tappan, 99 Mass. 376. But the lien, which was thus made available in that case, was preserved by the explicit terms of the statute. Those terms do not apply to the collateral liability of sureties upon a bond given to dissolve the attachment, and by which the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bates v. TappanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Pacific National Bank v. MixterSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Holyoke v. . AdamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  3. Alvaton Mercantile Co. v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  4. Schunack v. Art Metal Novelty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1911
  5. Guaranty Security Corp. v. OppenheimerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API