Case Name: Geary v. Shepard
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1793-03
Citations: 1 Root 544
Docket Number: 
Parties: Geary v. Shepard.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
Geary v. Shepard.
Money in tbe bands of an officer not liable to be attached and taken from him.
AotioN of trover for eighty-three pieces of gold coin, amounting to £151 10s. 8d. lawful money. Plea — :Not guilty.- Issue to the court.
The plaintiff was overseer to Jesse Spalding, and had an execution in his favor against Dunlap for the aforesaid sum, which it was the duty of Abraham Shepard to pay; Abraham Shepard prayed out an attachment against said Jesse, directed to one Gallop an indifferent person to serve, without his knowledge, who declined serving it, and said Abraham then inserts the name of the defendant his brother in the- writ, in tbe place of Gallop’s, without the knowledge of the justice who signed it; the defendant then went with said Abraham to the plaintiff’s, where the officer was who had the execution in favor of said Jesse, and said Abraham paid the money upon the table, the plaintiff indorsed said execution satisfied, as overseer or agent to said Jesse; the defendant attached it as the property of said Jesse, by virtue of said Abraham’s attachment and took it away; said Abraham fearing his said writ would fail, prayed out another attachment against said Jesse for the same cause, dropped the first and attached the same money that the defendant had taken, and that suit was now depending in court.

Opinion:
The court found the defendant guilty and gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover the whole sum in damages.
The property in the money accompanied the possession and was in the plaintiff and not liable to be attached, in this way, for a debt of Jesse Spalding's. The defendant had no good authority to attach the money, even had it been attachable, as the money of said Jesse's; and its being taken out of his hands by the second attachment, cannot mitigate the damages, although it might furnish a good cause of action against the officer who took it. See the case of Willes v. Pitkin, ante.