Rockwood v. Allen
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rite-Hite Corporation v. Kelley Company, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1995)
- Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co. (Fed. Cir. 1995)
- Barango v. E. L. Hedstrom Coal Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1957)
- Wilson v. Faucy (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1943)
- Bishop v. McPherson (United States District Court 1941)
- New York Life Insurance v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1940)
- G. E. Lothrop Theatres Co. v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. (Mass. 1935)
- Pegram v. Stortz (W. Va. 1888)
- Barbour County v. Horn (Ala. 1872)
- Worcester v. Great Falls Manuf'g Co. (Me. 1856)
- Zachary v. Swanger (Or. 1854)
- Hapgood v. Fisher (Me. 1849)
- Willis v. Dudley (Ala. 1847)
- Hackett v. Pickering (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1829)
- Maxwell v. Pike (Me. 1822)
- Patterson v. Patten (Mass. 1819)
- Grosvenor v. Gold (Mass. 1812)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The cause was submitted without argument, and the opinion of the Court (absents Parsons, C. J.) was delivered by
By the statute of 1783, c. 59, § 2, it is enacted that when any goods or estate are attached upon *any writ or process, in case the cause of action [ * 256 ] docs by law survive, the same shall not be released or discharged by reason of the death of either party, but be held good to respond the judgment, to be given in the suit, in the same man
In the present case, there was no commission of insolvency issued, nor any representation made by the administrator. The words of the statute are very clear and explicit. The attachment was not discharged, and the officer made himself liable to the plaintiff by neglecting to levy the execution on the goods which he had attached. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment.
As to the question, respecting the measure of damages, it is a general and very sound rule of law, that where an injury has been sustained, for which the law gives a remedy, that remedy shall be commensurate to the injury sustained. The damages in this case are the value of the goods attached, it being understood that such value did not exceed the amount of the plaintiff’s judgment in the suit upon which they were attached.
Judgment on the verdict.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.