Shorey v. Hussey
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Replevin, before Howard, J. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Afterwards, find-hog that the officer’s return did not state that a replevin bond had been taken, he moved that the writ be quashed for that reason. The motion was overruled. To prove title to the property, the plaintiff introduced his bill of sale, also the subscribing witness, who, in answer to the plaintiff’s interrogatory, testified to its execution.
Read the full summary
Replevin, before Howard, J. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Afterwards, find-hog that the officer’s return did not state that a replevin bond had been taken, he moved that the writ be quashed for that reason. The motion was overruled. To prove title to the property, the plaintiff introduced his bill of sale, also the subscribing witness, who, in answer to the plaintiff’s interrogatory, testified to its execution. He was then cross examined as to the consideration, delivery, &c. To defeat the effect of that cross examination, the plaintiff, against the defendant’s objection,…
1Opinion of the Court
Shepley, C. J.,
orally.—The statute, chap. 130, sect. 3 and 10, provides that a replevin writ shall not be served, unless a bond be given, &c. But no statute requires the officer to state affirmatively in his return, that hp had taken a bond. If he serve the writ, the implication is that the bond was given. In the absence of proof, he is presumed to have acted as the law requires.
The object of the return is merely to bring the defendant into court, or make him responsible for not coming.
But, if the officer’s return was insufficient, the objection comes too late. Though the objection may be…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In Re Paradis'willSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1952
- Smith v. ClewsNew York Supreme Court · 1884
- People v. ElcoMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Shackford v. Town of NewingtonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1866