Heywood v. Hildreth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of the case against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Middlesex, for a false return of an execution by' one of his deputies.
Read the full summary
This was an action of the case against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Middlesex, for a false return of an execution by' one of his deputies. The facts, as contained in an agreed statement, upon which the case was submitted to the opinion of the Court, were shortly these: — One Samuel Jones, being seised of certain lands in fee, on the 4th day of October, 1809, conveyed the same in fee to the plaintiff and one Timothy Brown, as tenants in common, who were then ignorant of any encumbrance on the said land. On the 13th of September, 1809, one John Chandler caused the same land to be…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The whole proceedings, after the seizure on execution, have relation to the day of the seizure. It may often be impossible to complete the extent within thirty days from the rendition of judgment. But the creditor does not lose his lien created by the attachment and seizure, unless more than three months elapse before the recording and return of the execution, &c. (a)
Plaintiff nonsuit.
[Vide Vail vs. Lewis, 4 Johns. Rep. 450. — Devoe vs. Elliot, 2 C. R. 143. — Ed.]
2Cited by19 opinions
- Brown v. LuntSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854
- Johnson v. BallouMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Brown v. President of the Maine BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- President of the Portland Bank v. President of the Maine BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Johnson v. BemisNebraska Supreme Court · 1878
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.