Munroe v. St. Germain

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Munroe v. St. Germain

42 A. 900, 69 N.H. 200

DecidedJune 5, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A. 900 (Munroe v. St. Germain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Munroe v. St. Germain, 42 A. 900, 69 N.H. 200 (N.H. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Pike, J.

Assuming that the sale to the plaintiff was fraudulent as to creditors of Cavanaugh & O’Leary, and that the goods were lawfully attached and sold upon the writ, the sheriff had no power over the proceeds of the sale except to hold them for application according to law. P. 8., c. 220, s. 42. The plaintiff’s title was good as against Cavanaugh & O’Leary, and good as against every one else except attaching creditors. Jones v. Bryant, 13 N. H. 53; Hill v. Bank, 45 N. H. 300, 309; Stevens v. Morse, 47 N. H. 532, 535. The failure to return the writ to court dissolved the attachment, and the sheriff became bound to deliver the proceeds of the sale to the .plaintiff. P. S., c. 220, s. 36. Pie had no authority to- pay it to the attaching creditor except upon a levy. No execution has been or can now be had, and the defendant’s payment without judgment and levy was unauthorized and is no answer to the present suit.

*201 Under similar circumstances, it has been held in Massachusetts that a sheriff cannot justify under his attachment unless he returns his writ to court. Wilder v. Holden, 24 Pick. 8, 12; Rass v. Butterfield, 6 Cush. 242; Williams v. Babbitt, 14 Gray 141.

Exception overruled.

Parsons, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Pike, J.

Assuming that the sale to the plaintiff was fraudulent as to creditors of Cavanaugh & O’Leary, and that the goods were lawfully attached and sold upon the writ, the sheriff had no power over the proceeds of the sale except to hold them for application according to law. P. 8., c. 220, s. 42. The plaintiff’s title was good as against Cavanaugh & O’Leary, and good as against every one else except attaching creditors. Jones v. Bryant, 13 N. H. 53; Hill v. Bank, 45 N. H. 300, 309; Stevens v. Morse, 47 N. H. 532, 535. The failure to return the writ to court dissolved the attachment, and the sheriff became bound to deliver the proceeds of the sale to the .plaintiff. P. S., c. 220, s. 36. Pie had no authority to- pay it to the attaching creditor except upon a levy. No execution has been or can now be had, and the defendant’s payment without judgment and levy was unauthorized and is no answer to the present suit.

*201 Under similar circumstances, it has been held in Massachusetts that a sheriff cannot justify under his attachment unless he returns his writ to court. Wilder v. Holden, 24 Pick. 8, 12; Rass v. Butterfield, 6 Cush. 242; Williams v. Babbitt, 14 Gray 141.

Exception overruled.

Parsons, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A. 900, 69 N.H. 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munroe-v-st-germain-nh-1897.