Staples v. President, Directors, of Franklin Bank
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action on a post note for $ 2500, dated November 8th, 1836, issued by the defendants, payable m eight months, with interest, &c. The writ was sued out on the 11th of July, 1837, and the defendants’ real estate was attached 7 minutes before 11 o’clock A. M. on that day. The defendants were defaulted.
Read the full summary
This was an action on a post note for $ 2500, dated November 8th, 1836, issued by the defendants, payable m eight months, with interest, &c. The writ was sued out on the 11th of July, 1837, and the defendants’ real estate was attached 7 minutes before 11 o’clock A. M. on that day. The defendants were defaulted. James Barker, a subsequent attaching creditor, after-wards filed his petition that the plaintiffs’ attachment might bt dissolved, pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Statutes,, c. 90, §§ 83 — 91, on the ground that the sum demanded in the plaintiffs’ suit was not payable when the…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The present question comes before the court upon the petition of a subsequent attaching creditor, to set aside and dissolve the attachment in the present suit. The Rev. Sts. c. 90, §§ 83 — 94, authorize an after attaching creditor to come in and obtain a dissolution of the prior attachment, by showing, if he can, either that the sum demanded in the first suit was not justly due, or that it was not payable when the action was commenced. The petitioner insists that his case is within the last provision of the statute; that the sum demanded in this writ was not payable when the action was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Osborn v. MoncureNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Bussard v. LeveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Farnum v. FowleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Henry v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Laight v. MorganCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1796
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.