Case Name: Timothy Griswold versus Luther Plumb and Another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1816-09
Citations: 12 Tyng 298
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Timothy Griswold versus Luther Plumb and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
*Timothy Griswold versus Luther Plumb and Another.
Where two persons jointly undertake the custody of goods attached by the sheriff, and promise to deliver them to him on demand, it is enough for him to demand them of one of the bailees, and, upon his refusal to deliver them, an action lies for the sheriff against both.
The defendants had given to the plaintiff a joint receipt for certain chattels, which he, as a deputy sheriff, bad attached as the property of one Hunt, and a promise to deliver them to him on demand. After the execution was in the plaintiff’s hands, he demanded the chattels of the defendant, Plumb; but the other defendant, Sherrill, being out of the county, no demand was made on him, nor could the plaintiff find the chattels whereon to levy the execution.
These facts appearing on the trial of the general issue in assumpsit, before Putnam, J., he ordered the defendants to be called, the plaintiff agreeing, that the default should be taken off, and that he would become nonsuit, if, in the opinion of the whole Court, the action could not be supported against both the defendants.
Sedgwick, for the defendants,
argued, that the demand should have been made upon both defendants ; and that Sherrill’s being out of the county did not excuse this defect. The goods might have all been in Sherrills keeping, in which case the demand upon Plumb must necessarily be fruitless. At least, a demand might and ought
to have been made at Sherrill's last place of abode. The defendants were not to be considered as copartners, the act of one of whom would bind the other. They were merely the plaintiff’s servants, and had no property in the goods.
Howe, for the plaintiff.
Com. Dig. Tit. Condition, L. 5.
Whitcomb vs. Whiting, and Carwick vs. Wickery, in notis, Doug. 651

Opinion:
The Court said, there was nothing in the objection. If Sherrill had been present, there would have been no occasion to make a demand on both the defendants, their undertaking being joint.-
Judgment for the plaintiff.