Legal Opinion

Warren v. Leland

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 15, 1812PublishedCited by 10 opinions

This action was replevin. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent of the parties, subject to the opinion of the Court upon I he following facts admitted or proved: — The chaise, which was the subject of controversy, was formerly the property of one Joel Wesson, and, on the 17th of September, 1808, was attached on an original writ against him, at the suit of one jDaniel Dennie, by one Caldwell, a deputy sheriff.

Read the full summary

This action was replevin. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent of the parties, subject to the opinion of the Court upon I he following facts admitted or proved: — The chaise, which was the subject of controversy, was formerly the property of one Joel Wesson, and, on the 17th of September, 1808, was attached on an original writ against him, at the suit of one jDaniel Dennie, by one Caldwell, a deputy sheriff. Judgment was rendered in that suit in December, 1808, and within thirty days thereafter, being before the 10th of January, 1809, the same deputy sheriff levied the execution,…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

We have heretofore decided that, where an officer attaches personal chattels, and delivers them to a third person for safe keeping, such third person has no such property in the chattels as will enable him to maintain replevin for them. (1) Thu plaintiff fails on this ground.

But Caldwell himself could not maintain an action for the chaise in controversy, having lost the lien he had upon it by seizing it on Dennie’s execution. When he found it impracticable, from the situation of the roads, to transport the chaise to the place appointed *241for the sale, it was within his authority to…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Richards v. HolmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
  2. Dillenback v. JeromeNew York Supreme Court · 1827
  3. Trovillo v. TilfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
  4. Burrows v. StoddardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1820
  5. Nichols v. NicholsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915

5 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