Hatch v. Jerrard

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Hatch v. Jerrard

69 Me. 355, 1879 Me. LEXIS 72

DecidedApril 19, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 69 Me. 355 (Hatch v. Jerrard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hatch v. Jerrard, 69 Me. 355, 1879 Me. LEXIS 72 (Me. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Peters J.

The plaintiff had an execution against certain persons. The deputy of the defendant held the execution, together with the proceeds of certain attached property to be applied thereon. The plaintiff arranged with the debtors to release his lien upon the proceeds of the property upon the production of a certain consideration therefor. The promised or expected consideration did not come. The plaintiff, supposing it would come, ventured to notify the deputy that the money might be diverted from his execution and be paid upon the executions of others who attached the property subsequently to his attachment. So far as the officer acted upon this permission the plaintiff must be bound by it. But the officer was but the agent of the plaintiff, and (within legal bounds) under his control and direction. The plaintiff could withdraw his order or modify it, so far as it had not been acted upon.

If the plaintiff misinformed the officer, he should not suffer beyond what the officer did based upon the mis-information. The plaintiff was under no obligation to any one to surrender the property. Nor was the officer bound to do so. After notice from the plaintiff countermanding the direction he had no excuse for doing so. He wisely took an indemnity before doing so. The contro[357]*357versy is therefore between the plaintiff and the subsequent attachers.

Defendant defaulted for $155 and interest from date of writ.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows, Danforth and Libbey, JJ., concurred.

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

Peters J.

The plaintiff had an execution against certain persons. The deputy of the defendant held the execution, together with the proceeds of certain attached property to be applied thereon. The plaintiff arranged with the debtors to release his lien upon the proceeds of the property upon the production of a certain consideration therefor. The promised or expected consideration did not come. The plaintiff, supposing it would come, ventured to notify the deputy that the money might be diverted from his execution and be paid upon the executions of others who attached the property subsequently to his attachment. So far as the officer acted upon this permission the plaintiff must be bound by it. But the officer was but the agent of the plaintiff, and (within legal bounds) under his control and direction. The plaintiff could withdraw his order or modify it, so far as it had not been acted upon.

If the plaintiff misinformed the officer, he should not suffer beyond what the officer did based upon the mis-information. The plaintiff was under no obligation to any one to surrender the property. Nor was the officer bound to do so. After notice from the plaintiff countermanding the direction he had no excuse for doing so. He wisely took an indemnity before doing so. The contro[357]*357versy is therefore between the plaintiff and the subsequent attachers.

Defendant defaulted for $155 and interest from date of writ.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows, Danforth and Libbey, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Me. 355, 1879 Me. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-jerrard-me-1879.