Ladrick v. Briggs

105 Mass. 508

• Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
• Decided: November 15, 1870
• Status: Published

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

The plaintiff is estopped in this action to say that the defendant attached his goods on the writ; because he represented to the defendant that they were not his, and thereby induced the defendant to abandon his attachment of them and arrest his body. A representation thus acted upon operates as an estoppel upon the party making it. Wallis v. Truesdell, 6 Pick. 455. Dewey v. Field, 4 Met. 381. The attachment being abandoned, the arrest of the defendant was legal, though the defendant left the goods where they were, and only returned them within a reasonable time afterwards. The word release, as used by the judge, could not have meant the act by which the attachment ceased; for that ceased as soon as he yielded to the plaintiff’s assertion, and arrested him with the intent to abandon the attachment. But it must have referred to the act done within a reasonable time afterwards to restore the property to the possession of the supposed owner. Exceptions overruled.