Williams v. Kimball
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, with a count in tort, by a judgment debtor and the surety on his recognizance, against the sheriff of Middlesex, for the alleged neglect of one of his deputies to serve a notice of the time and place appointed for the examination of the debtor. After the former decision, reported 132 Mass. 214, the case was tried in the Superior Court, before Mason, J. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
The first question in this case is whether the service of the notice by the defendant was sufficient.
The statute applicable to the case requires that the notice shall be served “ by giving to the plaintiff or creditor, his agent *412or attorney, an attested copy thereof.” Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 13. Formerly such a notice was required to be served upon the creditor or his attorney, “by reading it to him.” Rev. Sts. c. 98, § 3. St. 1787, c. 29, § 1. In 1844, the law was changed, so that the notice was to be served upon the creditor or attorney, “ by giving him in hand a copy thereof, attested by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McInerny v. SamuelsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
3Cited by4 opinions
- Williams v. PatrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- H. B. Smith Co. v. Judge of Third District CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Kalbritan v. IsidorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Goldenberg v. BlakeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887