¶1The plaintiff is estopped in this action to say that the defendant attached his goods on the writ; because he represented to the defendant that they were not his, and thereby induced the defendant to abandon his attachment of them and arrest his body. A representation thus acted upon operates as an estoppel upon the party making it. Wallis v. Truesdell, 6 Pick. 455. Dewey v. Field, 4 Met. 381. The attachment being abandoned, the arrest of the defendant was legal, though the defendant left the goods where they were, and only returned them within a reasonable time afterwards. The word release, as used by the judge, could not have meant the act by which the attachment ceased; for that ceased as soon as he yielded to the plaintiff’s assertion, and arrested him with the intent to abandon *511the attachment. But it must have referred to the act done within a reasonable time afterwards to restore the property to the possession of the supposed owner. Exceptions overruled.
105 Mass. 508
Ladrick v. Briggs
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 15, 1870
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1870-11-15
Tort against a deputy of the sheriff of Essex for false imprisonment of the plaintiff. The defendant justified under the writ in an action brought in the superior court for Worcester by William O. Blaney against Ladrick, upon which he arrested Laárick; the validity of which arrest was the issue in this suit.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1926
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1870-11-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →