Young v. Riggs

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Young v. Riggs

185 N.E. 15, 282 Mass. 570, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 902

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 4, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 185 N.E. 15 (Young v. Riggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Riggs, 185 N.E. 15, 282 Mass. 570, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 902 (Mass. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Lummus, J.

The plaintiff obtained a finding in her favor in an action for conversion of an automobile • which, the trial judge found, had been given to her by the defendant. On the writ in this case an attachment of the automobile was made, and the defendant contends that the attachment of the automobile as the property of the defendant destroyed the plaintiff’s title and cause of action. The law is settled that it had no such effect. Miller v. Hyde, 161 Mass. 472. The defendant further contends that the return of the deputy sheriff on the writ that he attached the automobile “as the property of the within [571]*571named defendant” is conclusive that the title was in the defendant rather than the plaintiff. But the rule making the return of an officer conclusive upon the parties as well as upon himself (Bay State Wholesale Drug Co. v. Whitman, 280 Mass. 188) has no application to a recital of the ownership of attached property. Canada v. Southwick, 16 Pick. 556. Roberts v. Wentworth, 5 Cush. 192. Rogers v. Cromack, 123 Mass. 582. Hannum v. Tourtellott, 10 Allen, 494.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

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

Lummus, J.

The plaintiff obtained a finding in her favor in an action for conversion of an automobile • which, the trial judge found, had been given to her by the defendant. On the writ in this case an attachment of the automobile was made, and the defendant contends that the attachment of the automobile as the property of the defendant destroyed the plaintiff’s title and cause of action. The law is settled that it had no such effect. Miller v. Hyde, 161 Mass. 472. The defendant further contends that the return of the deputy sheriff on the writ that he attached the automobile “as the property of the within [571]*571named defendant” is conclusive that the title was in the defendant rather than the plaintiff. But the rule making the return of an officer conclusive upon the parties as well as upon himself (Bay State Wholesale Drug Co. v. Whitman, 280 Mass. 188) has no application to a recital of the ownership of attached property. Canada v. Southwick, 16 Pick. 556. Roberts v. Wentworth, 5 Cush. 192. Rogers v. Cromack, 123 Mass. 582. Hannum v. Tourtellott, 10 Allen, 494.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 N.E. 15, 282 Mass. 570, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-riggs-mass-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack