Gooch v. Atkins

14 Mass. 378
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1817
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 14 Mass. 378 (Gooch v. Atkins) 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
Gooch v. Atkins, 14 Mass. 378 (Mass. 1817).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was decided, in the case of Hatch vs. Green, that a judgment creditor, who had been evicted of part of the land taken in execution, might maintain an action of debt on the judgment for the appraised value of that part. The present case is stronger for the plaintiff, inasmuch as the plaintiff has never taken any thing by force of this supposed levy on the dower, as it is called; and it would be absurd to require that he should enter, when he knows that his title is defective, and that he should be evicted by a legal process, in order to maintain this action of debt on the judgment.

The only question therefore is, whether the defendant had any estate in the second parcel of land mentioned in the return; for if not, the execution and the * proceedings under it are wholly ineffectual as to that part, and the judgment remains unsatisfied for the sum at which it was appraised.

The return as to this point appears somewhat ambiguous. If it should be construed to mean that the estate appraised was the defendant’s rihgt to have her dower assigned and set off in the. dwelling-house, it is void and ineffectual; because such a right [326]*326cannot be taken in execution. If, on the other hand, it was understood at that time, as has been suggested in the argument, that this house had been assigned to the defendant as her dower, and if her estate as tenant in dower was intended to be appraised and taken on the execution, then it is ineffectual, because she had no such estate.

If the mistake had proceeded further, and the plaintiff, believing that the defendant was tenant in dower, had taken possession of the land, and continued to hold it, the case would present a different question. But it appears that he has never had possession; and by the pleadings in this action he would be estopped from ever claiming any estate in the land, under the levy of the execution. The proceedings, therefore, under the execution, as to this piece of land, are defeated and void.

As the plaintiff has never received any rents and profits from this land, he is entitled to interest, and must have judgment on the verdict for the sum of 1047 dollars 84 cents, with interest from the time of rendering the judgment.

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

Related

McMahon v. Gray
5 L.R.A. 748 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Smith v. Shaw
22 N.E. 924 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Witthaus v. . Schack
11 N.E. 649 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)
Nickell v. Tomlinson
27 W. Va. 697 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1886)
Maxon v. Gray
14 R.I. 641 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1885)
Inhabitants of Piscataquis v. Inhabitants of Kingsbury
73 Me. 326 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1882)
Wm. Davison & Co. v. Whittlesey
8 D.C. 163 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1873)
Grosvenor v. Chesley
48 Me. 369 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1859)
Fletcher v. State Capital Bank
37 N.H. 369 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1858)
Claussen v. La Franz
1 Iowa 226 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1855)
Perry v. Perry
68 Mass. 326 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1854)
Graham v. Moore
5 Del. 318 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1851)
Doe ex dem. Cook v. Webb
18 Ala. 810 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1851)
Blain v. Harrison
11 Ill. 384 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1849)
Ware v. Pike
12 Me. 303 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1835)
Green v. Bailey
3 N.H. 33 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1823)
Pixley v. Bennett
11 Mass. 298 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1814)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Mass. 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gooch-v-atkins-mass-1817.