24 Conn. 484 (Conn. 1856), Clark v. Gaylord

Citation:24 Conn. 484
Opinion Judge:Storrs, J.
Party Name:Clark v. Gaylord and another.
Attorney:Doolittle and Platt for the plaintiff. Wright and Lounsbury for the defendants.
Judge Panel:In this opinion, the other judges, Ellsworth and Hinman, concurred.
Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Page 484

24 Conn. 484 (Conn. 1856)

Clark

v.

Gaylord and another.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February, 1856

A bailment of personal property constitutes a valid consideration for a promise to return it.

In an action upon a receipt promising to re-deliver, on demand, property attached by the plaintiff as an officer, it is no excuse for a non-delivery that the title to such property was not in the defendant named in the writ, upon which it was attached.

This was an action by an officer against Ransom Gaylord and Lawrence Merriam, claiming damages of the defendants. for their refusal to surrender property, which had been taken by three writs of attachment against the said Gaylord, and delivered to the defendants upon their written receipt, promising to re-deliver the same to him, or some other proper officer, on demand, and acknowledging themselves estopped from denying that said property had been attached by the plaintiff, and that the defendants had received the same from him.

The cause was tried on the general issue at New Haven, at a term holden in October, 1855.

It was proved that on the 7th day of July, 1852, the property described in the declaration was attached by the plaintiff, as a constable of the town of Meriden, in three suits against the defendant, Gaylord, as the property of said Gaylord, and was taken into his possession by the plaintiff in due form of law. On the 23d day of July, 1852, said Clark delivered all said property into the possession of said Gaylord and Merriam, and in consideration thereof, on the same day they executed and delivered to the plaintiff the following receipt:

" Received at Meriden, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1852, of Jared B. Clark, of the town of Meriden, New Haven county, and state of Connecticut, he being a constable of said town, the property described in the annexed schedule, which was attached by said officer, as the property of Ransom Gaylord, of said town, in said county, on several writs of attachment, as follows: one in favor of Abner C. Wetmore of said Meriden, against the said Ransom Gaylord; one in favor of O. H. Platt, of said Meriden, against said Gaylord; and one in favor of Collins & Co., a co-partnership firm, located and doing business in said Meriden, composed of Seymour W. Baldwin, Aaron L. Collins, and Charles H. Collins, all of said Meriden, against said Gaylord; said writ in favor of Abner C. Wetmore is dated the 6th day of July, A. D. 1852, and is returnable to the New Haven county court, for New Haven county, to be held by adjournment, on the last Tuesday in August, A. D. 1852, commanding said officer to attach the goods, or estate of said defendant, to the value of five hundred dollars, as by said writ appears.

Said writ, in favor of O. H. Platt, is dated the 7th day of July, A. D. 1852, and returnable before James S. Brooks, Esq., a justice of the peace for New Haven county, in said town of Meriden, on Saturday, the 31st day of July, A. D. 1852, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, commanding said officer to attach to the value of seventy dollars, the goods or estate of Ransom Gaylord, aforesaid, as by said writ appears.

Said writ, in favor of Collins & Co., is dated the 7th day of July, A. D. 1852, and returnable to the county court for New Haven county, at the November term, A. D. 1852, of said court, commanding said officer to attach to the value of five hundred dollars the goods or estate of said defendant, as by said writ appears.

Which said property we hereby, for a valuable consideration, agree and promise, jointly and severally, to re-deliver in good order to said officer, or any other officer legally authorized to receive the same, on demand; or in default thereof to pay the sum of two hundred and ninety-three dollars; or if demand be not made before judgment is rendered, the amount of damages and costs, which shall be recovered by the plaintiffs respectively, in said cases, if the same shall fall short of that sum.

It being understood that we are hereby estopped from denying that the property, herein described, has been attached by said Jared B. Clark, and that we have received the same from him."

Said Wetmore recovered judgment against Gaylord, for the sum of $126.24 debt, and of $14.37 costs of suit; and said Platt recovered judgment in the suit in his favor, before said justice, for the sum of $20.75 debt, and $3.40 costs, and execution issued upon both of said...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
4 practice notes
  • 50 Conn. 372 (Conn. 1882), Pond v. Cummins
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • Invalid date
    ...that an officer is not accountable for the property to the attaching creditor, nor to the owner, he cannot recover. Clark v. Gaylord, 24 Conn. 484; Dayton v. Merritt, 33 Conn. 184; Pond v. Cooke, 45 Conn. 126. It appearing in this case that the defendant Bryan is the sole owner of the prope......
  • 33 Conn. 184 (Conn. 1866), Dayton v. Merritt
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • Invalid date
    ...for the plaintiff the defendants moved for a new trial. Treat, with whom was Ferris, in support of the motion, cited Clark v. Gaylord, 24 Conn. 484; Bacon v. Thorp, 27 Id., 251; Fowler v. Bishop, 31 Id., 560; S.C. 32 Id., Curtis, contra, cited Warren v. Powers, 5 Conn. 373; Brown v. Wheeler......
  • 45 Conn. 126 (Conn. 1877), Pond v. Cooke
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • Invalid date
    ...question to be considered is, whether the defendants have made full defence in the pending case. We think the cases of Clark v. Gaylord, 24 Conn. 484, Fitch v. Chapman, 28 Conn. 257, and Dayton v. Merritt, 33 Conn. 184, are decisive of this question in favor of the defendants, and further c......
  • 155 N.Y. 83, Baxter v. McDonnell
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • March 1, 1898
    ...Munro, 47 N.Y. 360; Davis v. Stover, 58 N.Y. 473; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 258; Harlan v. Harlan, 20 Penn. St. 303; Clark v. Gaylord, 24 Conn. 484; Powell v. Brown, 3 Johns. 100; Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268; Chitty on Cont. [ 3d ed.] 29; Todd v. Weber, 95 N.Y. 181; F. Nat. Bank v. Cha......
4 cases
  • 50 Conn. 372 (Conn. 1882), Pond v. Cummins
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • Invalid date
    ...that an officer is not accountable for the property to the attaching creditor, nor to the owner, he cannot recover. Clark v. Gaylord, 24 Conn. 484; Dayton v. Merritt, 33 Conn. 184; Pond v. Cooke, 45 Conn. 126. It appearing in this case that the defendant Bryan is the sole owner of the prope......
  • 33 Conn. 184 (Conn. 1866), Dayton v. Merritt
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • Invalid date
    ...for the plaintiff the defendants moved for a new trial. Treat, with whom was Ferris, in support of the motion, cited Clark v. Gaylord, 24 Conn. 484; Bacon v. Thorp, 27 Id., 251; Fowler v. Bishop, 31 Id., 560; S.C. 32 Id., Curtis, contra, cited Warren v. Powers, 5 Conn. 373; Brown v. Wheeler......
  • 45 Conn. 126 (Conn. 1877), Pond v. Cooke
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • Invalid date
    ...question to be considered is, whether the defendants have made full defence in the pending case. We think the cases of Clark v. Gaylord, 24 Conn. 484, Fitch v. Chapman, 28 Conn. 257, and Dayton v. Merritt, 33 Conn. 184, are decisive of this question in favor of the defendants, and further c......
  • 155 N.Y. 83, Baxter v. McDonnell
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • March 1, 1898
    ...Munro, 47 N.Y. 360; Davis v. Stover, 58 N.Y. 473; Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N.Y. 258; Harlan v. Harlan, 20 Penn. St. 303; Clark v. Gaylord, 24 Conn. 484; Powell v. Brown, 3 Johns. 100; Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268; Chitty on Cont. [ 3d ed.] 29; Todd v. Weber, 95 N.Y. 181; F. Nat. Bank v. Cha......