
    Nathaniel Goddard versus Nathaniel Austin.
    Where a sheriff, tc whom a writ of attachment was delivered, had directions from tile creditor to attach certain chattels of the debtor, he was not bound to attach on the same writ other property, afterwards shown him by another creditor, with directions to attach the same on his suit.
    Case against the defendant, sheriff of the county of Middlesex, for the misfeasance of one of his deputies. The plaintiff sued out a writ of attachment against one Turner, endorsing thereon a direction to the officer to attach certain lumber in the ship-yard of the debtor; and the deputy made and returned the attachment accordingly. Afterwards one Cutter, another creditor of Turner, sued his writ of attachment, and delivered it to the same deputy, with a direction to attach a vessel on the stocks in the same yard, which was done.
    The plaintiff insisted that the deputy was bound to return an attachment of the vessel on his .writ, prior to that upon Cutter’s writ; as indeed he afterwards, in a conversation with the plaintiffs attorney, informed him that he had done.
   But the Court were clearly of opinion that, under the circum stances of the case, the deputy was under no such * obligation; the special direction given him to attach the lumber excusing him from making any other attachment whatever. If, when he informed the plaintiffs attorney that lie had attached the vessel on his writ, he supposed it was his duty so to have done, because that writ was first in his hands, and after-wards, upon taking advice, he found he was wrong, — he had aright to make his return according to the fact, and to the rights of the parties ; and he cannot be chargeable, as for a false return, merely because he had stated the order of the attachments differently, un der a misapprehension of his duty, 
      
      
         Vide Turner vs. Austin, 16 Mass. Rep. 181.
     