Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

sion of the officer, it is liable to successive attachments, and when such attachments are made, each creditor has a right to notice and demand of the mortgage debt, and to the full time of ten days in which to pay it. Consequently a demand does not affect attachments made subsequently to it, but is good as against all previous attachments, unless it is expressly limited to a particular case or cases. Wheeler v. Bacon, 4 Gray 550. -Howe v. Bartlett, 1 Allen 29.- Macomber v. Baker, 3 Allen 241.

The mortgagee must make his demand within a reasonable time. When the demand was not made until ten months after the seizure, and no good cause was shown for the delay, it was held that there was a lack of reasonable diligence. Brackett v. Bullard, 12 Met. 308. For other cases on this point, see Johnson v. Sumner, 1 Met. 178.- Housatonic Bank v. Martin, 1 Met. 294.- Legate v. Potter, 1 Met. 325.-Tapley v. Butterfield, 1 Met. 515.- Whitwood v. Kellogg, 6 Pick. 420.Crosby v. Baker, 6 Allen 295. A sale of the property by the attaching officer does not render invalid a demand made subsequently, though within a reasonable time. Legate v. Potter, 1 Met. 325.- Tapley v. Butterfield, 1 Met. 515.

A good demand may be made, although the mortgage was given to secure a note payable on demand, and the mortgagee had never demanded payment, and although the mortgagor was, by the provisions of the mortgage, entitled to retain possession of the goods until condition broken. Alden v. Lincoln, 13 Met. 204.

A demand is necessary, although the mortgage provides that in case of attachment the mortgagee may take immediate possession. Wing v. Bishop, 9 Gray 223.

When one of several mortgagees, waiving his right under the mortgage, attached the property to secure his debt, it was held that the remaining mortgagees could not maintain an action of replevin without first making a demand as required in the statute. Buck v. Ingersoll, 11 Met. 226.

If, after an attachment has been made, the mortgagee sells a part of the property and applies the proceeds to the satisfaction of his debt, or assigns his mortgage and records the assignment, he cannot then make a valid demand upon the attaching creditor or officer. Granger v. Kellogg, 3 Gray 490.- Horne v. Briggs, 98 Mass. 510.

"And the property shall be restored to him." As to the form of action in case the money is not paid, nor the property restored, see Alden v. Lincoln, 13 Met. 204, 208.

SECT. 64. Where a mortgagee demanded payment of a claim, which he knew to be wholly false, and thereby induced the creditor to abandon his attachment and thus lose his debt, it was held that the creditor might recover damages in an action for deceit. Brown v. Castles, 11 Cush. 348.

SECT. 67. "And the mortgagee or his assigns may be sum moned," &c. After the property has been attached, and the mortgagee summoned as trustee, he cannot give notice and foreclose the mortgage. Hobart v. Jouvett, 6 Cush. 105.

"The amount due thereon.” A mortgage given to secure future claims is not a valid security for claims accruing after the property is attached and the mortgagee summoned. Barnard v. Moore, 8 Allen 273.- Codman v. Freeman, 3 Cush. 306.

The writ in proceedings under this section must be served on the mortgagor in the same manner as on the principal defendant in the regular trustee process. Kent v. Lee, 9 Gray 45.

If the mortgagee is discharged, the attachment is thereby dissolved. Martin v. Bayley, 1 Allen 381.- Hayward v. George, 13 Allen 66.

Sale by consent of Personal Property Attached.

SECT. 72. "And the debtor and all the attaching creditors consent in writing." The fact that the debtor agrees in writing to the sale of the property, and that it is sold accordingly, does not prevent the attachment from being dissolved by his death. Kingsbury v. Baker, 17 Pick. 429.

"Shall sell it in the manner," &c. Even if the property is sold before the return day of the writ, it is not necessary that the officer should make such sale a part of his return. Eastman v. Eveleth, 4 Met. 137, 145.

"The proceeds of the sale." When goods under attachment are mortgaged, and notice of the mortgage given to the attaching officer, and the mortgage is duly recorded, if they are sold under this section and an entry of "neither party" is afterwards made in the action in which they are attached, the proceeds of the sale in the officer's hands belong to the mortgagee. Appleton v. Bancroft, 10 Met. 231.

"Shall be held by the officer," &c. When a sale is made, the officer is liable, in an action for money had and received, to the party entitled to the proceeds, and cannot be permitted to show in defence that he has received no money, nor any equivalent therefor. Appleton v. Bancroft, 10 Met. 231. For other cases in regard to the liability of the officer, see Wheelock v. Hastings, 4 Met. 504.- New Hampshire Savings Bank v. Varnum, 1 Met. 34. Crocker v. Baker, 18 Pick. 407.

[ocr errors]

As to the effect of a sale under this section upon the rights of the parties in case of an assignment in insolvency of the defendant's property, see Wheelock v. Hastings, 4 Met. 504. - Eastman v. Eveleth, 4 Met. 137, 147. — Edwards v. Sumner, 4 Cush. 393.

Perishable Property Attached.

SECT. 73. The provisions of this and the following sections do not apply to an attachment on a vessel to enforce a lien thereon. Coburn v. Clark, 3 Allen 207.

SECT. 74. "Three disinterested persons." A brother of the attaching creditor is not a disinterested person within the meaning of the law. If the appraisers are not all disinterested persons, the officer becomes liable as a trespasser ab initio, if he makes a sale of the property. McGough v. Wellington, 6 Allen 505.

SECT. 77. "The goods shall thereupon be sold by the officer."

An appraisement made according to the statute conclusively justifies the officer in making a sale. Crocker v. Baker, 18 Pick. 407, 411.

SECT. 78. "Or giving bond." The bond of a person other than the debtor may be taken, provided, &c. (St. 1868, c. 285.) St. 1869, c. 436.

Joint Personal Property Attached on a Writ against Part-owner.

SECT. 87. If none of the part-owners avail themselves of the benefits of this and the following sections, the whole property must remain in the possession and custody of the officer. Reed v. Howard, 2 Met. 36, 40.

SECT. 88. "Upon his giving bond." The bond of a person other than the part-owner may be taken, provided, &c. (St. 1868, c. 285.) St. 1869, c. 436.

Attachments disputed by Persons having subsequent Liens, &c.

SECT. 92. "Subsequent attachment, purchase," &c. The word "subsequent" limits the words "or in any other manner," as well as the words "attachment, purchase, or mortgage." Pierce v. Richardson, 9 Met. 69.

"Not justly due." Where a note was made without the knowledge of the payee, who was liable as a surety for the maker for a debt due but not paid, against which liability the maker had promised to secure him, and the maker caused his own property to be attached for the purpose of securing the note, it was held that the note did not, until assented to by the payee, constitute a debt "justly due" to him. But where the plaintiff was the holder of a note payable on demand, which the debtor promised originally to secure, and without the plaintiff's knowledge the debtor caused his own property to be attached for the purpose of securing the payment of the debt, it was held that a subsequent attaching creditor could not object to the validity of the prior attachment on the ground that the action was not commenced by the order of the plaintiff, and that his assent was not given to it till after the subse

quent attachment had been made. Baird v. Williams, 19 Pick. 381, 384.

SECT. 95. The object of these provisions being to prevent collusion between the debtor and the person who makes the first attachment, a subsequent attaching creditor will not be confined to the grounds of defence of which the debtor might have availed himself. Carter v. Gregory, 8 Pick. 165. Strong v. Wheeler, 5 Pick. 410.

SECT. 98. "Reasonable costs." If the petition fails, the petitioner is liable for such costs as cannot be taxed against the defendant in the suit. He is liable for fees of witnesses summoned by the plaintiff on the trial of the petition, and also, it seems, for the travel and attendance of the plaintiff after the defendant is defaulted and while the petition is pending. He is also liable for the regular attorney's fee, but not for the counsel fees actually paid by the plaintiff in defending against the petition. Guild v. Guild, 2 Met. 229.

SECT. 99. The bond may be signed by a person other than the petitioner, provided, &c. St.. 1869, c. 436.

SECT. 102. This section excludes the application of the preceding sections in all cases where either the prior or the subsequent attachment was made in an action commenced before a justice of the peace or a police court. Putnam v. Bixby, 6 Gray 528.

Dissolution of Attachments by Giving Bond.

SECT. 104. "By giving bond with sufficient sureties." Such a bond does not require any internal revenue stamp. Sampson v. Barnard, 98 Mass. 359. The sureties will not be discharged by the commitment of the defendant on execution after breach of the condition of the bond, and, if the defendant is afterwards discharged on taking the poor debtor's oath, the obligee will be entitled, in an action against the sureties, to judgment and execution for the amount recovered in the action in which the attachment was made. Murray v. Shearer, 7 Cush. 333.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »