Capen v. Bartlett

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Capen v. Bartlett

26 N.E. 873, 153 Mass. 346, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 281

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 N.E. 873 (Capen v. Bartlett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capen v. Bartlett, 26 N.E. 873, 153 Mass. 346, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 281 (Mass. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, C. J.

The plaintiff, as deputy sheriff, attached “ the goods in question upon a writ in favor of M. E. Brown and Company, and against George Wilson.” One Jennie Smith “replevied the goods from the officer, and gave the bond in” the present suit. Judgment for the plaintiff was rendered in the suit of Brown and Company against Wilson, and Jennie Smith in the action of replevin became nonsuit. The defendant in the present action is a surety on the replevin bond given by Jennie Smith. The value of the goods replevied was agreed to be $300. It is assumed that in the replevin suit there had been judgment for the return of the goods before the present suit was brought. Pub. Sts. c. 184, § 13. “ Breach of the bond was admitted,” and the hearing was had for the purpose of determining the amount for which execution should issue. Pub. Sts. c. 171, §§ 9, 10.'

The defendant offered to prove that the goods replevied were “ all household furniture necessary for said Wilson and his family, and actually in use as household furniture, and so were exempt” from being taken on execution. Pub. Sts. c. 171, § 34, els. 1, 2. The court excluded proof of these facts, and the defendant excepted. The attaching officer was responsible for the [347]*347value of the goods attached, either to Brown and Company or to Wilson, and, as they were replevied from him without right, the goods or their value must be restored to him. The ruling was right. Wright v. Quirk, 105 Mass. 44. Leonard v. Whitney, 109 Mass. 265. Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Field, C. J.

The plaintiff, as deputy sheriff, attached “ the goods in question upon a writ in favor of M. E. Brown and Company, and against George Wilson.” One Jennie Smith “replevied the goods from the officer, and gave the bond in” the present suit. Judgment for the plaintiff was rendered in the suit of Brown and Company against Wilson, and Jennie Smith in the action of replevin became nonsuit. The defendant in the present action is a surety on the replevin bond given by Jennie Smith. The value of the goods replevied was agreed to be $300. It is assumed that in the replevin suit there had been judgment for the return of the goods before the present suit was brought. Pub. Sts. c. 184, § 13. “ Breach of the bond was admitted,” and the hearing was had for the purpose of determining the amount for which execution should issue. Pub. Sts. c. 171, §§ 9, 10.'

The defendant offered to prove that the goods replevied were “ all household furniture necessary for said Wilson and his family, and actually in use as household furniture, and so were exempt” from being taken on execution. Pub. Sts. c. 171, § 34, els. 1, 2. The court excluded proof of these facts, and the defendant excepted. The attaching officer was responsible for the [347]*347value of the goods attached, either to Brown and Company or to Wilson, and, as they were replevied from him without right, the goods or their value must be restored to him. The ruling was right. Wright v. Quirk, 105 Mass. 44. Leonard v. Whitney, 109 Mass. 265. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.E. 873, 153 Mass. 346, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capen-v-bartlett-mass-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack