
    Benajah Mason versus Guilford Briggs.
    Where one promises to deliver specific articles when called for, a demand at the party’s dwelling-house, in his absence, >'s sufficient to charge him with the value of the articles.
    
      Assumpsit for the value of certain articles mentioned in the declaration. Trial in the Common Pleas upon the general issue, and a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff brought the action up to this Court, under the provision of the late statute, upon exceptions to the opinion and direction of the Court below.
    The plaintiff, a coroner of the county of Bristol, had attached the several articles, at the suit of one Slade, and delivered them to the defendant, taking his receipt in writing, with a promise to deliver them to the plaintiff, or any proper officer legally authorized to call for them, when called for. Slade, having recovered judgment in his suit, delivered his execution to the plaintiff, who, within thirty days of the judgment., demanded the articles at the defendant’s dwelling-house, and of his wife, without success, the defendant being then, and for two months preceding, out of the commonwealth. This demand the Court below ruled to be insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to his action.
    
      Angier, for the defendant,
    being called on by the Court, contended that the plaintiff was held to make his demand personally on the defendant. It was at his own peril that he delivered the goods to the defendant alone. He might have retained the possession of them, or he might have insisted on more than one person to become responsible for them.
    * If the demand in this case should be decided to be [ # 454 ] sufficient to charge the defendant, the consequence will be, that creditors and officers will frequently avail themselves of the temporary absence from their homes of bailees of this kind, to obtain satisfaction of executions in cash, when the articles bailed may be wholly incompetent for the purpose; and this at the expense of humane neighbors, who have no interest in the business. Considering the frequency of this practice of bailing goods attached, such a consequence may be considered as attended with extensive mischief .
    Morton, for the plaintiff.
    
      
       11 Mass. Rep 242, Phillips & Al. vs. Bridge. —6 Johns. 43. —9 Johns. 361.
    
   Per Curiam.

If it were necessary, in a case like this, to make a ' personal demand, it would always be in the power of the party to elude a demand, and thus to avoid his responsibility. One who makes a contract to deliver specific articles on demand, should be always ready at his dwelling-house or place of business. A demand made upon him personally, for goods which he could not carry about him, would be liable to more reasonable objection than that in the case before us. Absence from the commonwealth, if such a demand as was made by the plaintiff would not otherwise be proper, fully justifies him in the course he took .

New trial ordered, 
      
       [As to the distinction between money and cumbrous goods, see Co. Lit. 210, 211. —Bacon, Ab. Tender (C). —Shower, 150. —4 Leon. 46. —Com. Dig. Pl. 2. W. 28. —Barnes vs. Graham, 4 Cowen, 452. -Griffith vs. Mansell, Freeman, K. B. 94. —Harvey vs. Jackson, ib. 433. —Boothys’ case, 6 Coke, 30 a. —Ed.]
     