Bradford v. McLellan
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Case against the defendant, as late sheriff of the County of Washington, for neglecting to attach sufficient personal property to respond the judgment on a writ in favor of the plaintiffs against L. C. White. The writ was placed in the hands of the defendant for service with written directions thereon, “ to attach sufficient personal property.”
Read the full summary
Case against the defendant, as late sheriff of the County of Washington, for neglecting to attach sufficient personal property to respond the judgment on a writ in favor of the plaintiffs against L. C. White. The writ was placed in the hands of the defendant for service with written directions thereon, “ to attach sufficient personal property.” On Dec. 22, 1838, the defendant returned an attachment of a share in one corporation ; on Jan. 19, 1839, three shares in another corporation ; and on Feb. 8, 1839, one share in another corporation. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs at…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court w'as drawn up by
Whitman C. J.
This case comes before us upon exceptions taken to the instructions given to the jury at the trial. . Attachments upon mesne process are unknown to the common law ; and depend upon statutory provision. Hence we cannot look abroad for precedents to guide us in ascertaining what may be the duties of officers in such cases. By our process of attachment the officer serving a writ, vvhen so ordered, is bound to attach sufficient to secure the payment of what may finally be recovered; provided, property belonging to the debtor can be found to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Englebrecht v. Development Corp. for Evergreen ValleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976
- Hill v. PrattSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Vandalia v. MainesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1910
- Englebrecht v. DEVELOP. CORP. FOR EVERGR. VAL.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976