History
  • No items yet
midpage
Horton v. Reed
13 R.I. 366
R.I.
1881
Check Treatment

We think the cases cited for the complainant from the Massachusetts Reports1 clearly show that under the General Statutes of Massachusetts, as construed by the Supreme Judicial Court of that State, the attachment has priority over the unrecorded deed, previously executed, notwithstanding that the deed was subsequently, before judgment, recorded. The question of what is the law of Massachusetts is a question of fact, to be decided on evidence, and on such a question we can have no better evidence than the decisions of the highest judicial court of the State. We therefore find that the attachment has priority, and grant the injunction prayed for by the bill.

Decree accordingly.

1 Cushing v. Hurd, 4 Pick. 253; Sigourney v. Larned, 10 Pick. 72; Curtis v. Munday, 3 Met. 405; Lawrence v.Stratton, 6 Cush. 163, 167; Sibley v. Leffingwell, 8 Allen, 584; Woodward v. Sartwell, 129 Mass. 210.

Case Details

Case Name: Horton v. Reed
Court Name: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Date Published: Oct 12, 1881
Citation: 13 R.I. 366
Court Abbreviation: R.I.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.