Barnard v. Towne
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trover. Facts agreed. November 9, 1896, the defendant'as deputy sheriff, in a suit brought by Henry E. Austin against Sally W. Fifield, attached her property, consisting of a livery-stable stock and building, and the property, being receipted for, went back into her possession. Subsequently she mortgaged the same property to one Aiken.
Read the full summary
Trover. Facts agreed. November 9, 1896, the defendant'as deputy sheriff, in a suit brought by Henry E. Austin against Sally W. Fifield, attached her property, consisting of a livery-stable stock and building, and the property, being receipted for, went back into her possession. Subsequently she mortgaged the same property to one Aiken. In the mortgage were inserted the words : “Subject to an attachment made by Henry E. Austin, of said Franklin, on a suit now pending in the supreme court of New Hampshire.” January 26, 1898, Aiken sold and assigned this mortgage to the plaintiff, both parties…
1Opinion of the CourtWallace, J.
The defendant acquired a valid lien on the property by his attachment in the suit of Austin against Fifield. This was not lost by his taking a receipt and allowing the property to go into possession of the debtor. By virtue of the attachment, the officer could at any time take the property from either the receiptor or the debtor. As between the debtor and the officer, the attachment was still in force. “The special property acquired by the officer under his attachment remained and he could assert it at airy time, unless the rights of third parties had intervened.” Buzzell v. Hardy, 58 N. H.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Buzzell v. HardySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1878
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wallerbeck v. HaavenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933