Thurston v. Huntington
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Case. The declaration set forth that one Nahum Harrington was indebted to the plaintiff upon a promissory-note ; that the plaintiff purchased a writ and delivered it to the defendant, who was sheriff of the county, for service ; that the defendant, on the 20th of February, 1844, attached the equity of redemption of a farm in Alstead, belonging to Harrington, subject to three prior attachments in favor of Oliver Huntington, Thaddeus Davis, and Daniel Maulé; that the plaintiff…
Read the full summary
Case. The declaration set forth that one Nahum Harrington was indebted to the plaintiff upon a promissory-note ; that the plaintiff purchased a writ and delivered it to the defendant, who was sheriff of the county, for service ; that the defendant, on the 20th of February, 1844, attached the equity of redemption of a farm in Alstead, belonging to Harrington, subject to three prior attachments in favor of Oliver Huntington, Thaddeus Davis, and Daniel Maulé; that the plaintiff recovered judgment and delivered an execution to the defendant, with instructions to ■ levy the same upon the estate…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
The fact that the town-clerk was not present does not affect the attachments.
Aside from the fact that the sheriff returned the attachments in a particular order, subject to each other, the evidence would show the attachments to be simultaneous. They were made at the same time.
When attachments are simultaneous the attaching creditors are entitled to equal portions. 13 Mass. 529, Shove. v. Dow; 14 Pick. 414, Sigourney v. Eaton; 6 Conn. 170, Lee v. Hinman, cites 1 Swift’s Dig. 156.
The main question, then, is, what effect that fact has upon the case.
Returns may so be made. This is often done in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Knapp v. HanfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1826