Smith v. Bowker
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of trespass, brought by Aaron Smith of Athol, in the county of Worcester, for taking the plaintiff’s cows; and was submitted to the judgment of the Court upon the following state of facts,, viz., That a writ of attachment in due form of law was purchased out of the clerk’s office of the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Worcester, dated November 16, 1799, directed to the sheriff of the county of Hampshire, or his deputy, commanding them to attach the…
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass, brought by Aaron Smith of Athol, in the county of Worcester, for taking the plaintiff’s cows; and was submitted to the judgment of the Court upon the following state of facts,, viz., That a writ of attachment in due form of law was purchased out of the clerk’s office of the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Worcester, dated November 16, 1799, directed to the sheriff of the county of Hampshire, or his deputy, commanding them to attach the goods or estate of Aaron Smith of Orange, in the county of Hampshire, yeoman, alias gentleman, &c., so that he might be…
1Opinion of the CourtThacker, J.
There is no question in my mind that the defendant, Bowker, made a legal service of the execution. It appears by the state of facts, that the present plaintiff made the note declared on in Sweetser’s action, and that the writ was served on him in that action ; if he was not properly described in the writ, he should have taken advantage of the mistake by a plea in abatement; this he did not do, but permitted judgment to be rendered against him. An execution issued on that judgment, directed to the present defendant, whose duty it was to execute the precept. He was under no obligation to make…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Williams v. WhitingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- De Camp v. DobbinsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1878
- Woodbury v. FreelandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1860