Tucker v. Bradley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action on the case against the defendant, as a constable of the town of Plymouth, for neglect of official duty in the service of two writs of attachment in the plaintiff’s favour against Percival T. Butler.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case against the defendant, as a constable of the town of Plymouth, for neglect of official duty in the service of two writs of attachment in the plaintiff’s favour against Percival T. Butler. The cause was tried at Litchfield, February term, 1842, before Storrs, J. In the afternoon of Friday, the 2nd of August, 1839, the plaintiff, by his agent, James T. Henderson, put the writs of attachment mentioned in the declaration into the hands of the defendant for service; he being then a constable of the town of Plymouth. At this time, Butler, the debtor, owned the real…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
When a plaintiff in a writ of attachment, is desirous of having it served immediately, he has a right so to direct the officer, when he delivers to him the process. And the officer receiving it, under such instructions, is bound to follow them, and, on failure, is answerable for the consequences.
*51But when no such instructions are given, the officer is not bound to act with that degree of vigilance, and generally has a right to serve the process, at any time within the period prescribed by law. He is indeed bound to act reasonably ; and if, as the court instructed the jury, he has knowledge, or…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Gross v. Gates, Auditor of AccountsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1937
- State ex rel. Kearney v. FinnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Young v. KimberSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
- Dailey v. FentonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Hewitt v. McNerneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.