Case Name: Samuel Rathbone and Moses Rathbone against Justus Riley
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1807-02
Citations: 3 Day 503
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Rathbone and Moses Rathbone against Justus Riley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Day's Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 503–505

Head Matter:
Samuel Rathbone and Moses Rathbone against Justus Riley.
ji_ having ma<ie a cun" veyance. ot land to and B. to C.f and !)., a creditor of J}., having attached the premises, in a suit against A.y and caused a copy of the attachment to be left in the town clerk’s office, before the conveyance from B. to £,,• such copy is notice to C,, arid to alt the world, of 2*.⅛ claim to the premises.
THIS was an action of ejectment. The general issue was pleaded, and closed to the jury. c J 1
Dwight and Z. H. Smith, for the plaintiffs,
Goodrich and J. Williams, for the defendant.
The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, by the levy of an execution, in their favour, against Josiah Brooks.
The defendant claimed a title derived from Brooks, by regular conveyances.
On the 2d of December, 1803, Brooks gave a deed of the land in question to Nathaniel Tryon, which was soon afterwards recorded. Tryon conveyed to the defendant, by a deed, which was executed, and recorded, on the 30th of May, 1804.
It appeared that the plaintiffs, on the 21st of January, 1804. attached the land, as the property of Brooks, in a suit against him, returnable to the Hartford city court. A copy of that attachment, with the officer’s doings thereon, was duly left in the town clerk’s office. Having obtained judgment against Brooks, the plaintiffs took out execution, and on the 18th of May, 1804, had the same levied on the land, which was immediately appraised, and set off to them. The execution, with the officer’s return, was recorded by the town clerk, on the 23d of the same month, and by the clerk of the city court, on the 2d of June.
Evidence was introduced, by the plaintiffs, to show that the deed from Brooks to Tryon was fraudulent.
The counsel for the defendant .contended, that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of any fraud, and ■without notice of the plaintiffs’ attachment; and that hie title, therefore, was valid. To this point Lee v. Abbe was cited.
The counsel for the plaintiifs insisted, that the copy of their attachment, left in the town clerk’s office, was constructive notice to the defendant, and to all the world, of their claim against Brooks. And as to the doctrine established in Lee v. Abbe, they said, it did not apply to this case; because the plaintiffs' lien on the land accrued before the execution of the. deed from Tryon to the defendant.
It was answered, centra, that the copy of an attachment against Brooks, in the town clerk’s office, could not be constructive notice to the defendant, when he was about to take a conveyance from Tryon,
2 Boot, 35®.

Opinion:
Swift, Pr. J.
in summing up to the jury, said, that if they found the deed from Brooks to Tryon to be fraudulent, the copy of the attachment left in the town clerk's office, and the record of the execution, was constructive notice in law to the defendant, and to all the world, that the plaintiffs claimed tlic demanded premises ; and that the levy of the execution by the plaintiffs vested in them a legal title thereto.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, widen wsc accepted.