
    Bisson v. Joyce.
    One whose lien upon goods taken from his possession upon a replevin writ has been satisfied, cannot recover the value of the goods in trespass against the officer serving the replevin writ who has delivered the goods to the person entitled to the possession after discharge of the lien.
    Trespass, quare clausum, with a count in trespass de bonis. The action was brought in the police court of Somersworth, where the plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant appealed. One Philomene Bisson sued out a writ of replevin (returnable at the .September term, 1890), by virtue of which the defendant,.a deputy sheriff, took the goods, for the taking of which damages are demanded in the suit. Ephraim Bisson, the plaintiff in this suit, claimed a lien on the goods for $69. February 23, 1891, and before the trial of this case, Philomene settled the replevin suit by paying to Ephraim all he claimed on account of his lien. The goods were in one of Ephraim’s rooms in a tenement house. The defendant went to the room, found the door locked, procured a key with which he unlocked it, and took the goods.
    The court ordered judgment on the first count for the plaintiff for $1 and costs to the time of the settlement of the replevin suit, and the plaintiff excepted.
    
      O. S. Cormier, for the plaintiff.
    
      W. S. & D. R. Pierce, for the defendant.
   Allen, J.

The plaintiff had a lien on the goods, and had the right of possession until the lien was satisfied; hence the taking by the defendant upon the replevin writ was wrongful. But since the service of the writ and before trial of this action the amount of the lien has been paid to the plaintiff and accepted by him, thus terminating his right to the possession of the goods. The right of the plaintiff in replevin, Philomene Bisson, to the possession, whether they were her property or in part the property of her husband, is superior to the plaintiff’s, who had no right to retain them after payment of his lien. He cannot recover for the value of goods upon which he has no claim and which are now rightfully in the possession of another. The amount awarded as damages seems commensurate with the damage proved; but that question, with the one of costs, is settled at the trial term.'

Exception overruled.

Carpenter, J., did not sit: the others concurred.  