Gast v. Goldenberg Et Al‪.‬

LUMMUS, J. This is an appeal from a decision of the appellate division of the municipal court of the city of Boston, dismissing
a report by a trial Judge who found for the defendants in a suit by a constable upon a bond of indemnity given him by the
defendants upon the making of an attachment. On August 5, 1918, the defendants brought suit against one Angelica Costa, and placed the writ in the hands of the plaintiff
as a constable for service. The ad damnum of the writ was $150. The plaintiff was instructed by counsel for the defendants
to put a keeper in the place of business of Costa, but no instructions were given as to the amount or value of the property
to be attached. An attachment of personal property was made upon that writ, and also upon another writ with an ad damnum of
$200, brought by another creditor of Costa, and a keeper put in as directed. Then the attorney for the present defendants,
after a notice from mortgagees, instructed the plaintiff to remove the attached chattels, but gave the plaintiff no directions
as to the quantity or value of the chattels to be removed. The plaintiff demanded and received from the defendants the bond
in suit, conditioned that it should be void if the defendants should indemnify and save harmless the plaintiff from all suits,
damages and costs for which he 'may be liable or obliged by law to pay to any person or persons by reason of the said attachment,
or of any further intermeddling of said Paul R. Gast by virtue of said process.' Under his attachment, the plaintiff removed
chattels belonging to Costa of the value, known to the plaintiff, of not less than $2,000. The defendants recovered judgment
against Costa in the sum of $103.85, and the plaintiff sold all the attached property on execution for the sum of $125. Costa
sued the plaintiff and these defendants jointly for conversion and abuse of process. The present defendants obtained a directed
verdict in their favor, but judgment was awarded against the present plaintiff for $1,341 and interest, amounting to $1,425.25,
besides costs of $68.90, which he satisfied. This court, in that case (Costa v. Goldenberg, 258 Mass. 264, 154 N.E. 579),
held that the jury might find in favor of Costa for conversion, as well as for abuse of process, on the ground that the amount
or value of goods attached was unwarranted by the writ.