Stackpole v. Hilton
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contbact against John H. Hilton and Edward T. Bubier, on a receipt signed by them, which, after reciting the delivery to them by the plaintiff of five cases of boots, attached by the plaintiff, a constable, as the property of one Murphy, on a writ in favor of J. E. Smith and C. L. Smith, contained a promise to deliver the property on demand and to save the plaintiff harmless “ from all costs, trouble and expense that shall or may arise to him through our default in…
Read the full summary
Contbact against John H. Hilton and Edward T. Bubier, on a receipt signed by them, which, after reciting the delivery to them by the plaintiff of five cases of boots, attached by the plaintiff, a constable, as the property of one Murphy, on a writ in favor of J. E. Smith and C. L. Smith, contained a promise to deliver the property on demand and to save the plaintiff harmless “ from all costs, trouble and expense that shall or may arise to him through our default in consequence of his intrusting said property in our hands.” The case was, by an agreement of the parties, and under a rule of…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
The only interest which the plaintiff had in the property described in the receipt was that of an attaching officer. Upon the assumption (which, however, we do not decide) that the receipt signed by the defendants, upon the faith of which it is claimed that the officer had abandoned a valid attachment, estopped the defendants to deny that goods were attached of the kinds described in the receipt, yet, the extent of his responsibility to the attaching creditors was that the property should be forthcoming to be taken on their execution within thirty days *450after the date of their judgment. The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Blake v. KimballMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Jameson v. MasonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- Weeks v. MartinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nims v. SpurrMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885