Ahern v. Purnell

• Decision Date: 01 April 1892
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: AHERN v. PURNELL et al.

25 A. 393

62 Conn. 21

AHERN

v. PURNELL et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 1, 1892.

Appeal from court of common pleas, Hartford county; Taintor, Judge.

Action by Ellen Ahern against Samuel Purnell and another for damages for an alleged unlawful taking possession of a store by defendants, and carrying away a stock of goods it contained. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

H. O'Flaherty, for appellant.

J. W. Coogan, for appellees.

CARPENTER, J. The plaintiff took a bill of sale of a store of goods, and took possession thereof, and of the store in which they were, June 17, 1891. The bill of sale was without consideration, and void as against creditors, but good as between the parties. The defendant Purnell then had a claim against the vendor, Norah C. Ahern, which was claimed not then to be due. On June 20th he attempted to attach said store of goods, by virtue of a writ of attachment issued on said claim, and took possession thereof, and also took possession of the store, excluding the plaintiff there from. The officer, in making the alleged attachment, described the property in the return indorsed on the original writ, and also on the copy left with the defendant in service, as follows: "Then and by virtue hereof I attached as the property of the with in named defendant twenty packages of tea, and two packages nearly full of tea, and have taken the same into my possession; and afterwards, on said 20th of June, I attached as the property of said defendant all the stock and goods in said defendant's store, situated on Main street, South Manchester, in said town, and posted a notice on said store door stating that the stock and goods in said store were under attachment." At the time of making the attachment the defendants were together, and the officer, finding the key to the store in the door lock, took possession thereof, and locked the store, and refused to allow the plaintiff to remain therein. Thereupon this suit was brought. On the trial the plain tiff claimed "that the defendants had no right to so close the store, and that they were liable in an action of trespass for so doing." The plaintiff also claimed "that said attachment, with the exception of the twenty-two packages of tea described in said officer's return as having been attached in said suit, was an invalid attachment, because the officer did not describe in his return to the defendant, N. C. Ahern, in said suit, the property attached in said suit, as required by the statute in case of attachment of personal property." Also that, "if said attachment was invalid for the reason above stated, said Purnell and said officer were mere wrongdoers, and that the plaintiff, being in the possession of the property at the time of said attachment, could maintain a suit against them on account of her possessory title." The court overruled the several claims of the plaintiff, and rendered judgment for the defendants.

One question presented by this record, and the first one discussed by the plaintiff's counsel, is, was the attachment in the suit against N. C. Ahern valid or invalid? The plaintiff claims that the acts of the officer did not conform to the statute, and therefore that...