Likewise, in Trager v. Hiebert Contracting Co., a registry clerk mistakenly indexed an attachment as an execution and added that the “execution” related only to land in Marblehead, Massachusetts.Id. ( citing Higgins v. Savoie, 288 Mass. 463, 467, 193 N.E. 238 (1934) (“this court has uniformly held in favor of a person who has done all he could do to have a transaction recorded, as against a subsequent creditor or purchaser who has relied on an erroneous record.”)). The defendant in the case claimed that he thus did not have constructive notice of the attachment of land in Peabody, Massachusetts.

This case is relatively old, but the statute has not been changed in any relevant manner. Mass.G.L. c. 233, §§ 63-66; cf. L.L. Brown Paper Co. v. Department of Public Works, 1953, 330 Mass. 496, 115 N.E.2d 496; Higgins v. Savoie, 1934, 288 Mass. 463, 467, 193 N.E. 238. Nor, in our opinion, if the issue is legally relevant, was the marshal's mistake such that it led reasonably to the registry's error.

United States v. O'Brien, 120 Fed. 446. Riley v. Brusendorff, 226 Mass. 310. See Higgins v. Savoie, 288 Mass. 463. Anderson v. Cohen, 30 F.2d 188, was decided later than Riley v. Brusendorff and does not notice that decision. It is provided by G.L. (Ter.

As to Lot 1, it is undisputed that Marhefka is in first position and Lamson is in second position. As to Lot 3, this court holds that Lamson is in second position, behind Hudson Savings Bank. Lamson filed the October 18, 2004 Order with the Registry of Deeds. Upon receipt of the court's Order, the Registry should have changed all references in the October 14, 2004 Writ of Attachment from "Applerock Revocable Trust" to "Applerock Realty Trust," so that the attachment would appear on the index for Applerock Realty Trust. The failure of the Registry of Deeds to change the index to accurately reflect the fact that Applerock Realty Trust's property was subject to an attachment should not cause Lamson to lose its creditor position. See Higgins v. Savoie, 288 Mass. 463, 467 (1934) ("In analogous situations this court has uniformly held in favor of a person who has done all he could do to have a transaction recorded, as against a subsequent creditor or purchaser who has relied on an erroneous record."); see also Trager v. Hiebert Contracting Co., 339 F.2d 530, 532 (D. Mass. 1964) ("[U]nder Massachusetts law an error in indexing at the registry, if the proper filing has been made . . ., does not invalidate the attachment."). Manor has properly attached a lien on the subject property, Lot 3. Manor initially brought an action against Edmond H. Plante, individually, and levied against the two parcels he held in his individual capacity.