
    Charles Warren versus Cyrus Leland.
    The bailee of a sheriff, of goods attached by him, cannot maintain an action against one for taking the goods out of his possession.
    Where a deputy sheriff had attached goods, and within thirty days after judgment seized them in execution, but failed to sell them, it was holden that another deputy sheriff might lawfully seize them on another execution, in the hands of the bailee of the first deputy, notwithstanding he had notice of the first seizure.
    This action was replevin. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent of the parties, subject to the opinion of the Court upon I he following facts admitted or proved: —
    The chaise, which was the subject of controversy, was formerly the property of one Joel Wesson, and, on the 17th of September, 1808, was attached on an original writ against him, at the suit of one jDaniel Dennie, by one Caldwell, a deputy sheriff. Judgment was rendered in that suit in December, 1808, and within thirty days thereafter, being before the 10th of January, 1809, the same deputy sheriff levied the execution, which issued on that judgment, upon the chaise, and delivered it into the hands of the plaintiff, who gave his receipt for its safe custody, and to redeliver it to the officer when required. On the same day, Caldwell advertised it for sale at a public house, distant a mile and a half from the plaintiff’s house, at which latter place the chaise was left, the sale to be at the end of four days from that time.
    
      Caldwell,
    
    being sworn as a witness, testified that he attended at the time and place advertised for the sale ; but the roads were so blocked up with snow that, although it was attempted to transport the chaise with an ox-team to the place of sale, it was found to be impracticable; that the place where the chaise was, was an obscure place, and * improper to be .appointed as a place of sale, and at that time also inaccessible by reason of the snow; that the roads continued much in the same circumstances until the 14th of the following February, previous to which time he saw the defendant, who was also a deputy sheriff, whom Caldwell understood to have another execution against Wesson, and whom he informed of the facts above mentioned relative to his having taken the chaise, and left it with the plaintiff. Caldwell also swore that the circumstance of the delay of the sale was mentioned to Dennie, the judgment creditor, and that he consent ed thereto.
    On the 14th of February, 1809, the defendant, being a deputy sheriff, as béfore mentioned, took the chaise from the custody of the plaintiff, by virtue of an execution in favor of one William E Green, against the said Wesson.
    
    After the chaise was taken by the defendant, it was replevied by the plaintiff, by the writ in this case, and by him delivered to Caldwell, who, on the 11th of March following, sold it on Dennie’s execution, and returned the same satisfied.
    
      Blake and Lincoln for the plaintiff.
    
      Bangs for the defendant.
   By the Court.

We have heretofore decided that, where an officer attaches personal chattels, and delivers them to a third person for safe keeping, such third person has no such property in the chattels as will enable him to maintain replevin for them. Thu plaintiff fails on this ground.

But Caldwell himself could not maintain an action for the chaise in controversy, having lost the lien he had upon it by seizing it on Dennie’s execution. When he found it impracticable, from the situation of the roads, to transport the chaise to the place appointed for the sale, it was within his authority to have adjourned the sale for a reasonable time. Had he done this, his lien would have remained. Having neglected to do it, it ceased at the expiration of the thirty days from the judgment; and the defendant lawfully seized it by virtue of Green’s execution,

Plaintiffs nonsuit. 
      
      
        Ludden vs. Leavitt, ante, p. 104.
     
      
      
        [Knap vs. Sprague, ante, 258. — Ed.]
     