Coast & Lakes Contracting Corp. v. Martin

• Decision Date: 06 July 1917
• Citation: 92 Conn. 11,101 A. 502
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: COAST & LAKES CONTRACTING CORP. v. MARTIN et al.

101 A. 502

92 Conn. 11

COAST & LAKES CONTRACTING CORP.

v. MARTIN et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 6, 1917.

Appeal from Superior Court, Tolland County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.,

Action by the Coast & Lakes Contracting Corporation against Manuel J. Martin and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Frank L. McGuire, of New London, for appellant.

Charles B. Whittlesey and Perry J. Hollandersky, both of New London, for appellees.

SHUMWAY, J. This action was brought by the plaintiff, claiming an injunction against the defendant, who is a deputy sheriff of New London county, to restrain him from taking and selling on execution certain property held under attachment. The execution was issued to enforce a judgment rendered in an action brought by Joseph Novy against the Breakwater Company. Novy's action was begun and the attachment made on August 15, 1913. At that time the Breakwater Company was engaged in the business of quarrying stone in the town of Ledyard. The stone after it was taken from the quarry was carried away and used in the construction of breakwaters and sea walls. The quarry occupied 10 to 12 acres covered by the operations of the company. The land was owned by a corporation called the Rivers & Harbors Improvement Company. Among the articles of property owned by the Breakwater Company were three hoisting engines and compressed air machinery, used by the company in the quarry. On the 27th of 'December, 1913, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against the Breakwater Company, and it was adjudicated a bankrupt, on February 2, 1914. The judgment in favor of Novy against the Breakwater Company was rendered on April 2, 1914. On March 23, 1914, the trustee in bankruptcy of the bankrupt sold the property under attachment to one Siegel, and he on April 4, 1914, transferred the same to the plaintiff in this action. The process in the action of Novy against the Breakwater Company was served and the attachment was made by J. H. Tubbs, deputy sheriff of New London county. He attached, as the property of the Breakwater Company, three hoisting engines and the compressed air machinery. At the time of the attachment the hoisting engines were in different parts of the quarry, and were separately and partially inclosed by rough structures, each having a roof, but open on one or more sides. The compressed air machinery was located in a long building, which was divided into separate rooms by partitions and had doors in front and rear. In the same room were two pumps. The compressed air machinery consisted of two compressors, a steam cylinder and an air cylinder. Each compressor was mounted on a bed, on one end of which was a steam engine and on the other end was the cylinder in which the air was compressed. On each of the compressors was a plate giving the name of the manufacturer, its number, and size. From the judgment in favor of Novy the Breakwater Company appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors, and the judgment of the superior court was affirmed on December 22, 1914, and an execution delivered to Deputy Sheriff Martin, the defendant herein, on February 20, 1915, and on the same day he made levy of the same and posted notices of the sale.

The plaintiff's complaint was doubtlessly framed having in mind sections 831 and 911 of the General Statutes, and with a purpose to allege sufficient facts to show that as the property attempted to be attached had not been removed by the officer, the provisions of these statutes in such cases had not been complied with. One of the important questions in the case is whether or not the acts of the officer as detailed in the finding secured to the plaintiff named in the process a lien on the property attached so that the same could be held to satisfy an execution issued on final judgment. The statute (section 831) provides that in certain cases an officer making an attachment is not required to move the property attached. The portion of the statute material for the purposes of this case is as follows:

"Attachments of machinery, engines, or implements, situated and used in any manufacturing or mechanical establishment, * * * which cannot, in the opinion of the officer levying upon the same, be moved without manifest injury, shall be effectual to hold the same, without any removal thereof: Provided the service of such attachment shall be completed and a copy of the process and of the accompanying complaint, with the officer's return indorsed thereon, particularly describing the property attached, shall be filed in the office of the town clerk of the town in which such property shall be situated, within twenty-four hours after such attachment shall have been made."

Section 911, relating to levy of...