
    Thomas Bailey versus William Jewett and James Jewett.
    Property was attached on mesne process, and delivered to keepers, on their receipt and promise to redeliver the same to the officer on demand. On issuing execution, and within thirty days from the judgment, the officer demanded the property without effect. Ón an alias execution, the judgment debtor was committed and discharged, upon taking the poor debtors oath. The keepers were still held liable to the officer on their contract
    This was a special action on an accountable receipt, given by the defendants to the plaintiff, then a deputy sheriff.
    
      The cause was submitted to the decision of the Court upon certain facts agreed, in substance as follows: One Augustus Patrono, commenced a suit against the defendant William Jewett, in which the plaintiff, by * direction of the creditor, attached a vessel, of which the said William was a part owner. The plaintiff retained possession of the vessel a few days, and then delivered her to the defendants, taking the receipt therefor, with a promise to deliver the same to him on demand. The vessel was afterwards sent to sea and was lost. Patrono recovered judgment in his said suit, and delivered his execution to one Swett, then a deputy sheriff, for service, the plaintiff having before that time gone out of office. Swett demanded and received the said receipt from the plaintiff, and on the same day applied to the defendants with it, and demanded of them the said brig, that he might levy the execution thereon. All this was done within the thirty days from the said'judgment. Swett returned the execution unsatisfied. Afterwards Patrono sued an alias execution upon his said judgment, upon which the said William was committed to prison, from which he afterwards obtained a discharge by taking the poor debtor’s oath.
    Judgment was to be entered in the action, upon the default of the defendants or the nonsuit of the plaintiff, as the opinion of the Coutt should be upon the facts stated.
    
      Longfelloio, for the defendants,
    argued that the taking the body of the judgment debtor, and committing him in execution, was a waiver of the attachment, and of any right arising on the contract sued in this action.
    
      Emery for the plaintiff.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was liable to the judgment creditor, having attached the vessel, and afterwards having permitted her to be taken out of his custody. The creditor having sued out his execution, and delivered it to an officer, who within thirty days from the judgment demanded the same of the defendants, they are liable, upon their receipt, for the value of the vessel, or so much thereof as shall be sufficient to satisfy the judgment in the suit in which it was attached.

*The taking the judgment debtor on the alias execution, and committing him, has not the effect of discharging this contract. It is no satisfaction of the judgment, and the creditor had a right to try that remedy, without incurring the loss of his claims on the plaintiff arising under the original attachment.

Defendants defaulted. 
      
       See 11 Mass. Rep. 317, Lyman vs. Lyman & Al.
      
     