C. C. Plumb Mixes, Inc. v. Stone (1971)

Citation: 108 R.I. 75, 272 A.2d 152 · Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island (opinion by Kelleher, J.) · Decided: January 7, 1971

Source note (2026-10-18):

• Links on this page to https://static.case.law/ri/108/cases/0075-01.json are an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.

Text retrieved from the Caselaw Access Project’s static copy, an unofficial reproduction of the reported opinion.

Facts

Plaintiff’s attorney sent the Kent County sheriff a writ of attachment and writs of mesne process against a debtor, Lucien Theroux. The sheriff took Theroux’s dump truck and stored it; after judgment the truck was sold at a sheriff’s sale. The execution carried the attorney’s directions to the sheriff, including “the number of times the sheriff is to advertise the sale of the truck.” Plaintiff (the creditor) sued the sheriff to recover fees and storage and advertising charges it claimed were excessive.

Holding

Affirmed for the sheriff: the creditor was not the proper party to sue for the alleged overcharges, because the sheriff’s bills were rendered to, and payable by, the attorney.

Reasoning

By long-established Rhode Island custom the sheriffs bill attorneys, not clients, for service-of-process fees and related charges; an attorney who sends process to the sheriff impliedly undertakes to pay unless he tells the sheriff otherwise, and the bills in evidence named the attorney as debtor.

Practical impact

The execution and advertised truck sale are facts in the opinion, not holdings fixing present sale terms. The court decided who could sue over the bills; it did not decide whether the amounts were lawful, set a statewide advertisement frequency, approve the buyer’s title, or establish the order of paying sale costs. Current goods sale requirements come from § 9-26-12 and § 9-26-13, not an extrapolation from the attorney’s directions in this record.

Good-law status

Full five-page reported opinion independently retrieved and read October 18, 2026, including the footnote expressly leaving the General Treasurer proper-defendant question unraised. This is not an Article 9 priority decision. The record’s implied promise allows an attorney to disclaim personal responsibility, after which the sheriff may insist on client prepayment; it is not an unconditional attorney guarantee.

Bounded name/citation treatment searches and comparison with current execution law produced no verified overruling. No comprehensive citator was available, and no current fee-billing practice is certified by this historical opinion. The current sheriff service page concerns service fees; it does not establish auction deposit or buyer-payment terms.

Applies in →

rhode-island · Topic: personal-property-execution-sales-by-state

Legal information, not legal advice.