Case ID: nh_67/html/0539-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam \n      \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fife v. Ford.
    Failure to comply with the demand of an attaching creditor of the vendee of personal property for an account of the amount due upon a lien reserved by the vendor discharges the lien as against the attachment.
    Trover, for an organ attached by the defendant, an officer, upon a writ against one Brown. Facts found by the court. At the time of the attachment the plaintiff had a vendor’s lien upon the organ. The defendant made an oral demand upon the plaintiff for an account of the amount due on the organ, which she promised to furnish upon her return home; but she failed to do so.
    
      John H. Andrews, for the plaintiff.
    
      George B. Cox, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam

The plaintiff sold and delivered the organ to Brown conditionally, retaining a lien thereon in accordance with the statute. P. S., c. 140, ss. 23, 24, 26. At the time of the attachment Brown was the owner of the organ, subject to the plaintiff’s lien; and his interest therein, like the interest of the mortgagor of personal property, was attachable. Hervey v. Dimond, ante, p. 342. After the demand for an account of the amount due under the lien, and the plaintiff's neglect to furnish it within fifteen days, the defendant held the organ discharged from the plaintiff’s claim. P. S., c. 220, ss. 17, 18; Kimball v. Morrison, 40 N. H. 117. Whether the demand in such a case must be in writing is a question which it is unnecessary to consider, since, if a. formal written demand is necessary, the plaintiff waived the observance of that requirement by failing to object to the oral demand, and promising to comply therewith.

Judgment for the defendant.

Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred. 
      
      See foot-note on page 80.