Dooley v. Cotton

69 Mass. 496
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 15, 1855·Published

Opinion

Dewey, J.

That our process of writ of execution being in the alternative, to take either goods and chattels, or lands, or the body of the debtor, either of the three modes may be selected by the creditor, or,by the sheriff, with the privity or subsequent assent of the creditor, has been long sanctioned bj practice, and good authority. Lyman v. Lyman, 11 Mass. 317. Woodward v. Hopkins, 2 Gray, 213. It seems also to be sanctioned by the express provisions of the Rev. Sts. c. 97, § 12. The body of the debtor, Cotton, was therefore properly arrested and committed to jail, and the bond given by the defendants was a legal bond. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Footnotes

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

Dooley v. Cotton, 69 Mass. 496 (Mass. 1855).

69 Mass. 496 (Dooley v. Cotton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lyman v. Lyman
11 Mass. 317 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1814)