Bruce v. Pettengill
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Case. The first count set forth that D. Tenney &, E. Gould were indebted to the plaintiff on a promissory note— that the plaintiff purchased out a writ on the same, returnable February term, 1837. and delivered it to the defendant, a deputy sheriff, on the 19th of October, 1836, to be served ; and that the defendant, on the same day, was in the store of Tenney & Gould, where were goods of sufficient value to secure the plaintiff’s claim, which the defendant might have…
Read the full summary
Case. The first count set forth that D. Tenney &, E. Gould were indebted to the plaintiff on a promissory note— that the plaintiff purchased out a writ on the same, returnable February term, 1837. and delivered it to the defendant, a deputy sheriff, on the 19th of October, 1836, to be served ; and that the defendant, on the same day, was in the store of Tenney & Gould, where were goods of sufficient value to secure the plaintiff’s claim, which the defendant might have attached, but which attachment he neglected to make, whereby the plaintiff lost his debt. The second count alleged that the…
1Opinion of the CourtUpham, J.
There is an extensive practice prevailing with officers, to make nominal attachments of property on writs committed to them for service, without any actual exhibition of the property, or knowledge of its existence, and to take receipts for such property at a valuation sufficient to respond the amount which may be recovered in judgment.
Where suits have been brought on receipts taken in this manner, it has been uniformly holden that the receipter is estopped from denying either the attachment of the articles, *345or their value, as specified in the receipt. 8 N. H. Rep. 238, Morrison vs. Blodgett &…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Phillips & Brown v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Jewett v. TorreyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Morrison v. BlodgettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1836
- Runlett v. BellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1831