Whitney v. Farwell
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a receipt, signed by the defendant, as. follows, viz. : “ January 25th, 1833. Received of Pliny Whitney the following articles, attached by him as the property of Daniel May — namely: two horses, valued at two hundred dollars, and one two-horse sleigh, at twenty dollars ; which property I promise to deliver on demand, or account for it at the above price.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a receipt, signed by the defendant, as. follows, viz. : “ January 25th, 1833. Received of Pliny Whitney the following articles, attached by him as the property of Daniel May — namely: two horses, valued at two hundred dollars, and one two-horse sleigh, at twenty dollars ; which property I promise to deliver on demand, or account for it at the above price.” It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, on the fourteenth day of October, 1833, demanded said horses and sleigh, and the defendant refused to deliver them. It was also in evidence that the only suit on which said property…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
The contract of a receipter of property, held under attachment by an officer, is a contract sui generis, and the rules which govern it are framed to suit the exigencies of the case.
For some purposes he is considered a mere bailee, to keep for hire.
Thus it is his duty to deliver the property to the attaching officer on demand, unless the receipt specifies otherwise, in order that it may be applied to the discharge of the debt; and in those instances where he receives the property without any contract with the debtor, he is entitled to compensation for his care and custody. And if he do not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Turner v. AustinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
3Cited by4 opinions
- Webb v. SteeleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842
- In re GilbertDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1936
- Young v. WalkerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842
- Hill v. WigginSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1855