Clap v. Guild

8 Mass. 153
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1811·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Curia.

We are all of opinion that this motion cannot prevail. The bond in this case, being for more than twice the value of the goods replevied, will always be subject to reduction on a hearing in equity. It was certainly sufficient to justify the officer in serving the writ of replevin; and indeed it may have been true that the defendant himself insisted on a larger bond than the writ directed, alleging that the goods were greatly undervalued in the writ. Whether this was the case or not, the bond being in too large a sum can never operate to the defendant’s injury. The service was legal, and the defendant can take nothing by his motion.

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

Clap v. Guild, 8 Mass. 153 (Mass. 1811).

8 Mass. 153 (Clap v. Guild) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marine Ecology Systems, Inc. v. Spooners Creek Yacht Harbor, Inc.
253 S.E.2d 613 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Maguire v. Pan-American Amusement Co.
91 N.E. 135 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Stovall v. Commonwealth
4 S.E. 379 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1887)
Litchman v. Potter
116 Mass. 371 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)
Wright v. Quirk
105 Mass. 44 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870)
Pomeroy v. Trimper
90 Mass. 398 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1864)
Nunn v. Goodlett
5 Ark. 89 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1849)
M'Caraher v. Commonwealth
5 Watts & Serg. 21 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1842)
Simonds v. Parker
42 Mass. 508 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1840)
Saeltzer v. Ginther
2 Miles 86 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1837)
United States v. Brown
24 F. Cas. 1250 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1830)
Cady v. Eggleston
11 Mass. 282 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1814)