Case ID: root_1/html/0481-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Parsons, Late Sheriff, v. Phillips et al.
    Eeceiptsmen for goods attached, are not hound to hold them from the debtor more than sixty days from the judgment, unless demanded within that time.
    ActioN upon a receipt given for goods taken by an attachment, declaring tbat on tbe 21st day of August A. D. 1786, by virtue of a writ of attachment in favor of Charles Sigour-ney against William Richards and Samuel Buel for £400 lawful money, tbe plaintiff attached certain goods, wares, etc. tbe property of said Richards, viz. (describes them,) to tbe amount of £400 lawful money; tbat be delivered said goods to tbe defendants upon their request to keep1 and return, and thereupon tbe defendants executed their receipt to the plaintiff, dated tbe 21st day of August A. D. 1786, therein promising to redeliver all said goods to tbe plaintiff when required; tbat be made return of said writ with bis doings thereon, properly indorsed, to tbe County Court bolden at Middletown in and for tbe county of Middlesex, on tbe second Tuesday of December A. D. 1786 — which action was duly entered in tbe docket of said court and by sundry legal removes came to tbe Superior Court, bolden at Haddam on tbe second Tuesday of January A. D. 1790, when and where said Sigourney, by tbe consideration of said court, recovered judgment in said action against said Richards and Buel for £290 Is. 6¿d. lawful money damages and his cost.
    Tbat said Richards immediately after said judgment was entered up against him and said Buel, prayed out a writ of error against said judgment before any execution was taken out thereon, dated tbe 27th of February A. D. 1790, properly signed, etc. returnable before tbe Supreme Court of Errors, to be bolden at Hartford on tbe Tuesday of tbe week preceding tbe second Thursday of May A. D. 1790 — wbicb on tbe 6tb of March after, was duly served on tbe plaintiff and returned to said Supreme Co-urt, and was continued to tbe session of said court in October A. D. 1790, when said court gave judgment that there was nothing erroneous in tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court, and execution was taken out upon said judgment of tbe Superior Court, dated tbe 16th day of October A. D. 1790 and directed in common and legal form and delivered to tbe sheriff to serve and return, and on tbe 29th day of said October be made return that be bad made demand of said William W. Parsons, late sheriff, also of said William Bichards for said goods, etc. but none were shown, nor could be find any whereon to levy.said execution.
    That thereupon said Sigourney instituted bis suit against tbe plaintiff for not delivering said goods, etc. per writ dated 29th of October 1790, to tbe City Court, holdem on tbe second Tuesday of November in said city of Middletown, and before said comt recovered judgment for tbe sum of £303 lawful money damages and cost, wbicb tbe plaintiff bad been compelled to pay; that on tbe 29th of October A. D. 1790 tbe plaintiff made special demand of tbe defendants for said goods; that they bad never delivered them, nor paid said Sigourney’s . execution — damage £400.
    Plea in bar — That no execution was ever taken out on said judgment of tbe Superior Court, rendered on tbe second Tuesday of January A. D. 1790 until tbe 16th day of October .1790, and that no request or demand was ever made of tbe defendants for said goods, etc. until on tbe 29th of said October and that tbe judgment of tbe Supreme Court- of Errors affirming tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court, was entered up, on tbe 12th) of October A. D. 1790; and that more than sixty days bad elapsed from tbe entering up said final . judgment in tbe Superior Court on tbe second Tuesday of January 1790 and tbe 29th of October A. D. 1790, when said goods, etc. were first demanded of tbe defendants; and tbe defendants having previous to that time delivered them to said Richards the original owner, upon, bis request, as by law they were obliged to do; that they offered to defend the plaintiff against the suit of said Sigourney, but he refused and suffered judgment against him, by default. Plaintiff demurred.
    Judgment — That the plea in bar is sufficient.
   The statute is that no personal estate attached, shall be held to respond the judgment obtained by the plaintiff, at whose suit the same is attached, either against the debtor or any other creditor, unless such judgment creditor take out execution on such judgment, and have the same levied; within sixty days after final judgment. The writ of error was no supersedeas to the plaintiff’s proceeding, till served on the 6th of March, nor after the judgment in, the Supreme Court of Errors was rendered; so that the plaintiff had more than sixty days clear of any incumbrance from the writ of error in which to have levied his execution. But having neglected to do it, and the defendants having delivered the goods to Richards the owner, the plaintiff was not liable to the creditor, and his remedy was by a new trial.