Case Name: Buel v. Metcalf. - In Error
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1786-03
Citations: 1 Kirby 40
Docket Number: 
Parties: Buel v. Metcalf. — In Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 40–41

Head Matter:
Buel v. Metcalf. — In Error.
Goods are taken by attachment and delivered to B., he promises to redeliver them on demand; if they he not demanded within sixty days after final judgment in the action on which they are attached, B. may restore them to the original owner, and shall not be liable on his promise to the officer.
Metcale brought bis action against Buel, to the Court of Common Pleas, on a receipt executed by tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff, as constable, for goods taken by attachment, containing a promise to redeliver said goods on demand, for tbe purpose of responding tbe judgment on tbe writ of attachment.
Tbe defendant pleadedj that be held said goods, and was ready to redeliver them to tbe plaintiff at all times, until tbe expiration of more than sixty days after final judgment on said writ of attachment; that no demand was made for said goods, and in consequence of tbe premises, be restored them to tbe original owner.
On demurrer to tbis plea, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.
Tbe plaintiff in error took two exceptions to tbis judgment —
1. That tbe declaration was insufficient, as it appeared from tbe face of it, that execution was not issued till more than sixty days after final judgment was rendered, and, therefore, the estate taken was discharged, and the defendant not holden to deliver it.
2. That the plea contained ample matter to discharge the defendant from his liability to said suit.
The judgment was reversed.

Opinion:
By the whole Court.
The execution was not taken out till more than sixty days after the judgment, beyond the expiration of which time the attachment could not hold the property, and it became thereupon the duty of the officer, •or of whoever held the property under him, to restore it to the debtor (as the reeeiptman has done) and he would have been liable in trover had he refused.