Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-12-28

ANS- ~ DSN. -ftH, LII.
York. IS. john f. Perry ct ais. VS..
Richard A. Gricfen. Rescript. Pea
body, ].
The plaintiffs writ Of attachment in
this case was issued out of the clerks
office of this court in York county and
described the defendant as of Chicago
in the state of Illinois. The writ was
placed in the hands of deputy
sheriff upon which he made his re-
turns. that he had attached a lot of
lumber valued AT 500 and lot of tools
valued at $25 as the property of the de-
PENDANT on the kittery Navy Yard in
York county and that he made service
OF. the defendant by giving his agent
in hand q summons for his appearance
ut court. No other service was made
on the defendant but it is not denied
that the goods attached were the
property of the defendant. The writ
was entered in court and counsel for
the defendant appearing especially for
the purpose moved the court to dismiss
the action for want of Jurisdiction The
court Overruled the motion and the
defendants counsel excepted. The
officers returns must be taken as true
in this action for the determination of
the question raised leaving the parties
to their right of action against the
sheriff il the return be untrue. AL
though the return is not so definite as
to the quantity and locatio of the
goods as might be desirable, it
sufficiently shows that goods of the de-
PENDANT We're actually attached on the
writ in this State. and that is enough
for jurisdictional purposes. Errors
were made by the officer in his return
to the town clerk but filing a copy of
the return in the statutory Office is not
part OF the process Of attaching per-
sonal property as it is in attaching real
estate. ~
On the original writ Of attachment
the officer must take actual possess
sion as he did in this case, which would
not be required where the attachment
is by trustee process. The statutory
provision for filing the copy of his re-
turn substitutes public notice of the
attachment for visible retention of the
property. The goods were attached
when the officer took possession OF
them by virtue Of the writ. The
plaintiff thereby gained a lien on them
and the court acquired jurisdiction
over them.
If the officer afterwards lost possess
sion and the plaintiff was thereby de-
prived of his lien he would have in
stead thereof a right of action against
the officer. but that question cannot be
determined here. In this action it
must be assumed that the officer still
has the goods under attachment ready
to respond to the judgment Of the
court
1t afhrmatively appearing of record
that the goods of the defendant were
found within the State, and attached
upon the original writ. that the de-
PENDANT was not an inhabitant of this
State and that service Of the writ was
made upon his agent in the State. ac-
cording to the statute the court is
authorized to take jurisdiction.
The defendant not answering to the
action, he was properly defaulted and
the plaintiff not having asked for a
special Judgment against the property
attached, the judgment will be general
In form against the defendant person.
ally.
1t is urged by the plaintiff that the
defendant should not be heard to
question the courts jurisdiction be-
cause he has not taken the right course
to raise the question nor taken any
course seasonably. and also because he
had waived it by an appearance in the
action; but when at any time or in any
manner in good faith it Is represented
to the court by party or by amicus
curiae has not Jurisdiction of the ac-
ton. it will examine the grounds of its
jurisdiction before proceeding further.
In this case We find sufficient grounds
for its jurisdiction.
Exceptions overruled.
Judgment on the default.
Reed Dec. 24th. 1904.