Dow v. Cheney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort against a deputy of the sheriff of Essex, for the conversion of a soda fountain, some ice-cream freezers and tin cans and some sugar.
Read the full summary
Tort against a deputy of the sheriff of Essex, for the conversion of a soda fountain, some ice-cream freezers and tin cans and some sugar. At the trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., the plaintiff’s evidence tended to show.that the plaintiff was a confectioner, and the articles named in his declaration were tools and implements, or materials and stock, necessary for carrying on his trade or business, and were exempt from liability to attachment, under the Gen. Sts. c. 123, § 32, and c. 133, § 32, cl. 5, 6; that part of his implements and stock, but not these articles, were mortgaged…
1Opinion of the CourtMobton, J.
At the trial, the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the articles claimed in his writ were tools, implements and fixtures, and materials or stock, necessary for *183carrying on his trade of a confectioner, and designed and procured by him to be used therein; and' the instructions given assumed that they were in whole or in part exempt from attachment, under the Gen. Sts. c. 123, § 32. The attachment by the defendant, and the control and dominion which he exercised over the property, to the exclusion of the rights of the plaintiff, were acts sufficient to constitute in law a…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Washington National Bank v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Copp v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Cornell v. MahoneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- McKenzie v. RedmanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1895
- Johnson v. LangSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902