Brinley v. Allen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action against the sheriff for a false return. The facts were as follows:—N. B. was the owner of a share in the Hay-market theatre, and was indebted to S. Smith in a considerable sum of money. Smith purchased a writ, which was put into the hands of a deputy sheriff, who arrested N. B., and took bail.
1Opinion of the Court
*489In a few hours after, the sheriff, on the same writ,, without giving up the bail-bond, attached the share in the theatre. Afterwards Brinley, another creditor of N. B.,. attached the same share, subsequent to the attachment of Smith, who went on with his suit, and levied his execution on the same share in the theatre.
The deputy sheriff made return on Stnith’s writ that he had attached the share, but took no notice of the previous arrest; and as the sheriff’s return was not traversable, Brinley lost the benefit of his attachment.
For the sheriff it was contended, that although it was not usual…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Almy v. WolcottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
3Cited by6 opinions
- Simmons v. RichardsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Massey v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Rockford, R.I. St. L.R.R. Co. v. . BoodyNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- The Rockford, Rock Island and St. Louis Railroad v. BoodyNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Butler v. WashburnSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.