
    George Reed & another vs. Alonzo F. Neale.
    A grocer’s stock in trade is not exempt from attachment under St, 1855, c. 264.
    Action of tort by grocers against a deputy sheriff for attaching their stock in trade on mesne process against them.
    At the trial in the superior court of Suffolk at March term 1856 the plaintiffs claimed that the property was exempt from attachment under St. 1855, c. 264. But Abbott, J. instructed the jury “ that, it being admitted that the plaintiffs were not mechanics and did not hold the attached property for their use in any mechanical business or avocation, but were traders and held the attached property for sale and use as traders, they could not in any event recover.” The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
    
      H. M. Parker, for the plaintiffs.
    
      I W. Beard, for the defendant, was not called upon.
   By the Court.

This case is covered by previous decisions. The plaintiffs’ stock was liable to attachment. Smith v. Gibbs, 6 Gray, 298. Wilson v. Elliot, 7 Gray, 69. Gibson v. Gibbs, 9 Gray, 62.

Exceptions overruled.  