Griswold v. Plumb
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The defendants had given to the plaintiff a joint receipt for certain chattels, which he, as a deputy sheriff, bad attached as the property of one Hunt, and a promise to deliver them to him on demand. After the execution was in the plaintiff’s hands, he demanded the chattels of the defendant, Plumb; but the other defendant, Sherrill, being out of the county, no demand was made on him, nor could the plaintiff find the chattels whereon to levy the execution.
Read the full summary
The defendants had given to the plaintiff a joint receipt for certain chattels, which he, as a deputy sheriff, bad attached as the property of one Hunt, and a promise to deliver them to him on demand. After the execution was in the plaintiff’s hands, he demanded the chattels of the defendant, Plumb; but the other defendant, Sherrill, being out of the county, no demand was made on him, nor could the plaintiff find the chattels whereon to levy the execution. These facts appearing on the trial of the general issue in assumpsit, before Putnam, J., he ordered the defendants to be called, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court said, there was nothing in the objection. If Sherrill had been present, there would have been no occasion to make a demand on both the defendants, their undertaking being joint.-
Judgment for the plaintiff.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. VailesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Mowry v. ToddMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Morse v. AldrichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1840