Dennis v. Smith

129 Mass. 143
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided July 1, 1880·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Ames, J.

We find no error in the rulings of the presiding judge. Upon making the attachment, it was the official duty of the constable to retain possession of the property, to await the result of the suit, and, upon the termination of the suit in favor of the original defendant, to return it to him. His failure to do so was a breach of his official duty. It was therefore a violation of the condition of his bond. It is immaterial that, in the suit against the constable, the declaration does not in terms describe him as holding that office.

The conclusiveness of the former judgment, both as to principal and sureties, in a suit against them upon their joint bond, is distinctly settled in Tracy v. Goodwin, 5 Allen, 409. In Boston v. Moore, 3 Allen, 126, cited by the defendants, the alleged misconduct of the officer consisted in not accounting for money paid to him by the debtor in settlement of the claim sued; a neglect which the court held not to be a violation of official duty.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Dennis v. Smith, 129 Mass. 143 (Mass. 1880).

129 Mass. 143 (Dennis v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Hattie
197 N.E. 817 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1935)
Titcomb v. Bay State Grocery Co.
150 N.E. 874 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Treasurer of City of Boston v. Schapero
217 Mass. 71 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Stevens v. Carroll
105 N.W. 653 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
State v. Corron
62 A. 1044 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1905)
Lewis v. Mills
66 N.W. 817 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Thomas v. Markmann
62 N.W. 206 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
Beauchaine v. McKinnon
56 N.W. 1065 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1893)
People ex. rel. Tuthill v. Russell
32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 524 (New York Supreme Court, 1881)