Case ID: mass_12/html/0118-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam,.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luke Baldwin versus George Jackson.
    Where an officer attaches personal chattels upon mesne process, he does nol lose his lien upon them by leaving them in the custody of a third person, with out removing them, although the general owner continues to use them.
    This was replevin for sundry articles of household furniture described in the writ. The defendant pleaded, that the property of the chattels was in one Van Schaick. The [ * 132 ] * plaintiff replied property in himself; and issue was joined on the plea.
    At the trial of this issue before Parker, C. J., at the last November term in this county, it was proved, that, on the 16th of August, 1813, Mrs. Van Schaick, being the owner of the chattels, was indebted to John Crafts, who procured a writ of attachment, and delivered it to the plaintiff, Baldwin, a deputy sheriff, with directions to attach these chattels. The plaintiff went to the house of Mrs. Van Schaick, in which the furniture was, made his attachment of the articles in question, and returned upon the writ that he had so done. He did not remove the goods, but committed them to the care of a young woman, a boarder in the house of Mrs. Van Schaick, giving her a paper signed by him, signifying that the goods were put into her keeping for him upon the attachment. The goods remained in the house as before, and were used by Mrs. Van Schaick.
    
    On the 22d of October, 1813, Andrew Sigourney, a bona fde creditor of Mrs. Van Schaick, took out a writ of attachment and delivered it to the defendant, a constable, with orders to attach the household furniture. He went to the bouse, and informed Mrs. Van Schaick of his business. She stated to him that the furniture was not hers ; Mr. Crafts observing, as the witness said, that she had given him a bill of sale of them. She, however, denied this, arid testified that she only stated that they were Crafts' property, that she had offered him a bill of sale, which he refused to receive, and proceeded by attachment. The goods were removed by Jackson, and replevied in this suit by Baldwin. Before Jackson made his attachment, he was informed by Mrs. Taylor, to whom Baldwin had committed the goods, that they were under attachment, and under her care for Baldwin.
    
    Judgment was obtained by Crafts several terms after the attachment, the action having been continued, although no appearance was entered for the defendant.
    The jury were instructed, that an actual removal of the goods was not necessary, to continue in force the attachment [* 133 ] * made by Baldwin ; provided they were put into the custody of any one acting as his servant: and the use of the furniture by the debtor, with the consent of the officer and creditor, could not of tself vacate the attachment. But, if they were satisfied, that the debt to Crafts was bona fide, and his process also, the goods were holden upon his attachment until judgment ; notwithstanding that all the intervening time they might have been used by the debtor, from motives of humanity towards her ; and that, if they found this to be the fact, the special property was in Baldwin, and the issue should be found for him.
    A verdict was returned for the plaintiff accordingly ; and, if the foregoing directions were right, judgment was to be rendered on the verdict; otherwise, it was to be set aside, and the plaintiff to become nonsuit.
    
      Cooke, for the plaintiff.
    
      The Solicitor- General, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam,.

There is no reason why the verdict in this case should not stand ; the jury having found that there was a debt due to Crafts, the first attaching creditor, and that his attachment was instituted, and the process carried on, bona fide, to judgment.

It is true, that the attaching officer must keep possession of the goods attached to him, in order to prevent the effects of a second attachment. But this possession needs not to be personal. In many cases it cannot be so. It is sufficient that the officer should lock up the goods, and retain the key ; or put them into the custody of some one acting as his servant ; the purpose being to give notoriety to the attachment.

This was an attachment of furniture, which was put into the custody of a young woman boarding in the house, and the debtor, who was a female, was permitted to use the furniture. This will not avoid the special title, which Baldwin, the attaching officer, acquired. The use, permitted to the woman, was from motives of humanity and compassion, and.not with a design to cover the property against creditors * by a pretended attachment. Jackson, [*134] who made the second attachment, had notice from the young woman who had the custody of the goods, that they had been previously attached. The whole transaction appears to have been innocent and laudable, and has not divested the special property o, the plaintiff.

Judgment on the verdict. 
      
      
        Train vs. Wellington, post, 495. — Bridge vs. Wyman et al, 14 Mass. Rep. 140. [Fettyplace vs. Dutch, 13 Pick. 388.— Ed.]