Case Name: Gridley versus Harraden
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1780-11
Citations: 13 Tyng 497
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gridley versus Harraden.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
Gridley versus Harraden.
This was an ejectment, pending several years in this Court; and in June, 1771, a special verdict was found, and argued by Fitch for the demandant, and Adams for the tenant; at June term, 1779, the verdict was set aside, and a new one found, which embraced more particularly the facts upon which the cause turned.
The verdict found that Gridley and one Thompson, deceased, being partners, brought their action against the now tenant at April term. 1768, to recover a debt, and attached the demanded premises by the original writ; that, having obtained judgment at November term of the same year, they sued out their execution against the tenant, and caused the premises to be set off to them in satisfaction thereof, and the sheriff duly gave them seisin and possession; and that Harraden afterwards entered on them.
The jury further found that, after the commencement of said action against said Harraden, and during its pendency, and before trial, one A. Hall, a creditor of the said Gridley 8f Thompson, instituted a process against the said Harraden, as agent * and trustee ot the said Gridley 8f Thompson, they being then out of the province; and such proceedings were had thereon that judgment was recovered by said Hall against the goods, effects, and credits, of said Gridley &f Thompson, in the hands of said Harraden; which he afterwards paid to said Hall, on an execution duly issued. . And if upon the whole matter, &c.
This special verdict was now argued by Pynchon for the demand ant, and Lowell for the tenant.

Opinion:
Cushing, C. J.,
stated that a number of questions had been raised at the bar ; but the principal one, which required a decision, was this: Whether a credit, after action brought to recover it, was an attachable interest, within the provincial law of 2 Geo. 2, c. 3.
It is objected, on the authority of Babington vs. Babington, Cro. Eliz. 157, and Humphrey vs. Barns, Ibid. 691, that this credit, pendente lite, could not be attached; and also that a judgment having changed its nature into a debt, it could not now be held, even if it were rightfully attached at first. After suit brought by these authorities, the debt is quasi in custodia legis, and cannot be arrested by this trustee process.
Another question is raised, whether the payment on the execution issued under the trustee process is not a satisfaction of the original execution, and has thus relieved the land from the levy. In support of the affirmative are cited 2 Vent. 327, Cro. Jac. 424, and Cro. Eliz. 734.
But the Court are of opinion that, while the original judgment, execution, and levy, are in full force, and apparently regular, no remedy can be given the tenant on this verdict. A matter of record cannot be set aside in a side-way by matter in pais. Unumquodque dissohitur eo ligamine quo ligatum est.
However, as the attachment of this credit must have been known to the present demandant and his partner, and as it has been, in fact, applied to the payment of their debt, there seems to be great hardship in this case on the part of Harraden. The Court will therefore suspend judgment, in order that he may apply for an audita querela, to seek a remedy from an execution, which it appears irregularly issued.
Note. — The action was continued for about two years, and then the demandant became nonsuit.