Legal Opinion

Smith v. Condon

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 29, 1899PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Contract, to recover a balance alleged to be due upon a judgment recovered in the Central District Court of Worcester. Writ dated September 24,1897. At the trial in the Superior Court before Hopkins, J., it appeared that the judgment had been rendered for the plaintiffs on January 30, 1889, and that execution was duly issued, and that a deputy sheriff levied it upon the personal property of the defendant, including stock of goods, fixtures, horse, wagon, harnesses, and safe,…

Read the full summary

Contract, to recover a balance alleged to be due upon a judgment recovered in the Central District Court of Worcester. Writ dated September 24,1897. At the trial in the Superior Court before Hopkins, J., it appeared that the judgment had been rendered for the plaintiffs on January 30, 1889, and that execution was duly issued, and that a deputy sheriff levied it upon the personal property of the defendant, including stock of goods, fixtures, horse, wagon, harnesses, and safe, which property had been held under attachment by him, upon the writ in the original action, and the execution was never…

1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.

The only case in this Commonwealth which the defendant cites in support of his contention is Ladd v. Blunt, 4 Mass. 402, which contains the following obiter remark: “ When goods sufficient to satisfy the judgment are seized on a fieri facias, the debtor is discharged, even if the sheriff waste the goods, or misapply the money arising from the sale, or does not return his execution. For by a lawful seizure the debtor has lost his property in the goods.”

In Rice v. Tower, 1 Gray, 426, 429, it was said by Mr. Justice Metcalf: “ There are obiter dicta in" the books, that by seizure on a fi.fa. the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ladd v. BluntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
  2. Linton v. HurleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
  3. Wilson v. HatfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Crawford-Plummer Co. v. McCarthyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API