Baird v. Williams
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
In both of these actions, Bayley, Poor & Richardson, as subsequently attaching creditors of the defendant, intervened, by petition, under the statute, for the purpose of contesting the validity of the attachments made by the respective plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
In both of these actions, Bayley, Poor & Richardson, as subsequently attaching creditors of the defendant, intervened, by petition, under the statute, for the purpose of contesting the validity of the attachments made by the respective plaintiffs. In the first action it appeared, by an agreed statement of facts, that the defendant, as principal, and the plaintiffs, Baird and Joseph Lamb, as sureties, executed a note for the sum of $ 500, payable to the Fitchburg Bank, the defendant stipulating with Lamb, that in case he, the defendant, should meet with difficulty in his business, or be…
1Opinion of the Court
Shaw C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. These two cases have been considered conveniently together, there being some points of resemblance, and some of difference, between them. In both cases, subsequent attaching creditors come in, to contest the validity of the plaintiffs’ attachments, under the statute. This proceeding is now regulated by the Revised Statutes, c. 90, § 83, et seq. It provides, that any person claiming title or interest in the attached property, may be *383allowed to dispute the validity and effect of the prior attachment, on the ground, that the sum demanded in the first…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harrison v. Trustees of Phillips AcademyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Charlottesville v. Stratton's AdministratorSupreme Court of Virginia · 1903