History
  • No items yet
midpage
Warren v. Leland
9 Mass. 265
Mass.
1812
Check Treatment
By the Court.

We have heretofore decided that, where an officer attaches personal chattels, and delivers them to a third person for safe keeping, such third person has no such property in the chattels as will enable him to maintain replevin for them. (1) Thu plaintiff fails on this ground.

But Caldwell himself could not maintain an action for the chaise in controversy, having lost the lien he had upon it by seizing it on Dennie’s execution. When he found it impracticable, from the situation of the roads, to transport the chaise to the place appointed *241for the sale, it was within his authority to have adjourned the sale for a reasonable time. Had he done this, his lien would have remained. Having neglected to do it, it ceased at the expiration of the thirty days from the judgment; and the defendant lawfully seized it by virtue of Green’s execution, (a)

Plaintiffs nonsuit.

Ludden vs. Leavitt, ante, p. 104.

[Knap vs. Sprague, ante, 258. — Ed.]

Case Details

Case Name: Warren v. Leland
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Sep 15, 1812
Citation: 9 Mass. 265
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
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.