Gridley v. Harraden
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an ejectment, pending several years in this Court; and in June, 1771, a special verdict was found, and argued by Fitch for the demandant, and Adams for the tenant; at June term, 1779, the verdict was set aside, and a new one found, which embraced more particularly the facts upon which the cause turned.
Read the full summary
This was an ejectment, pending several years in this Court; and in June, 1771, a special verdict was found, and argued by Fitch for the demandant, and Adams for the tenant; at June term, 1779, the verdict was set aside, and a new one found, which embraced more particularly the facts upon which the cause turned. The verdict found that Gridley and one Thompson, deceased, being partners, brought their action against the now tenant at April term. 1768, to recover a debt, and attached the demanded premises by the original writ; that, having obtained judgment at November term of the same year, they…
1Opinion of the Court
Cushing, C. J.,
stated that a number of questions had been raised at the bar ; but the principal one, which required a decision, was this: Whether a credit, after action brought to recover it, was an attachable interest, within the provincial law of 2 Geo. 2, c. 3.
It is objected, on the authority of Babington vs. Babington, Cro. Eliz. 157, and Humphrey vs. Barns, Ibid. 691, that this credit, pendente lite, could not be attached; and also that a judgment having changed its nature into a debt, it could not now be held, even if it *426were rightfully attached at first. After suit brought by these…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Trowbridge & Jennings v. MeansSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1843
- Hardwick v. HarrisNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1917
- Dingman v. MyersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1859