Opinion
Decided June, 1886.
The service of a writ by copy or summons given to the defendant is not invalidated by the sheriff's non-execution of a command of the same writ to attach property.
CASE, for slander. The writ commanded the sheriff to attach the goods or estate of the defendant, and summon him. No attachment was made. The officer's return is, that he summoned the defendant by giving him a true attested copy of the writ. The defendant moved to quash on the ground that there could be no legal service without an attachment.
E. J. Temple and H. W. Brigham, for the defendant.
E. M. Forbes, for the plaintiff.
Notice was properly given by copy. Laws 1883, c. 22. The sheriff's non-execution of the command to attach property deprived the defendant of no notice or advantage to which he was entitled. The requirement of notice by copy or summons when property is attached (G. L., c. 223, s. 3) does not make the validity of such notice depend upon an attachment. The ancient practice of making a false return of an attachment of a chip is useless, and not commendable. The case is not an exception to the general rule, that a party cannot object to anything that is not injurious to him. Shirley v. Lunenburg, 11 Mass. 379, 383; Perley v. Parker, 20 N.H. 263, 270; McKean v. Cutler, 48 N.H. 370, 375; Lisbon v. Lyman, 49 N.H. 553, 585; M. M. R. Co. v. Jurey, 111 U.S. 584, 593.
Motion denied.
BINGHAM, J., did not sit: the others concurred.