Stevens v. Bailey

58 N.H. 564
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMarch 5, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 N.H. 564 (Stevens v. Bailey) 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
Stevens v. Bailey, 58 N.H. 564 (N.H. 1879).

Opinion

Stanley, J.

The claim is that the defendant was released, as receiptor, by the neglect of the attaching creditor to enter the action on the return day. The contract of a receiptor is, that he will deliver to the officer the property receipted for, on demand, or answer for its value, to the extent of the judgment in the suit in which it was attached, not, however, exceeding the valuation fixed in the receipt, and he is not released from liability by any proceedings in the action in which the receipt is given which do not increase his liability or modify his contract, as expressed in the receipt, to his prejudice. Laighton v. Lord, 29 N. H. 237, 257; Page v. Jewett, 46 N. H. 441, 445; Miller v. Clark, 8 Pick. 412.

It is not found as a fact, nor is it suggested, that the defendant has *565 in any respect changed his position, or been prejudiced by the neglect of the attaching creditor. He has therefore no cause of complaint, and no reason exists why he should be excused from the performance of his contract.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Allen and Smith, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Related

Brown v. Ellsworth
55 A. 356 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.H. 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-bailey-nh-1879.