Sherman v. Davis

137 Mass. 132, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 200
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided April 1, 1884·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Field, J.

At common law, mortgaged personal property could not be taken on an execution against the mortgagor, because the legal title was not in him; and it is only by statute that it can now be attached, or taken on execution, and the statutes do not now permit it to be taken on execution, unless it has first been attached in the manner provided by the statutes. Badlam v. Tucker, 1 Pick. 389. Brackett v. Bullard, 12 Met. 308. Lyon v. Coburn, 1 Cush. 278. Lamb v. Johnson, 10 Cush. 126. Prout v. Root, 116 Mass. 410. Porter v. Warren, 119 Mass. 535. But, if the mortgage was fraudulent and void as to creditors, a creditor could levy an execution upon the property, as if the mortgage had no existence. The mortgage might be good, as between the parties, yet voidable by creditors of the mortgagor. Shurtleff v. Willard, 19 Pick. 202. Pratt v. Wheeler, 6 Gray, 520. Angier v. Ash, 6 Foster, 99. Russell v. Dyer, 33 N. H. 186. Brown v. Snell, 46 Maine, 490.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Sherman v. Davis, 137 Mass. 132, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 200 (Mass. 1884).

137 Mass. 132 (Sherman v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hannaford v. Charles River Trust Co.
248 Mass. 225 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Ward v. Sturdivant
98 S.W. 690 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)
Ashcroft v. Simmons
34 N.E. 188 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Harmon v. Osgood
24 N.E. 401 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)