Reeside v. Fischer
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Allegany County Court. This was an action of replevin, brought on the 4th of March 1824, by the appellee against the appellant, and sundry goods and chattels were on the same day replevied by the sheriff out of the possession of the appellant, and delivered to the appellee.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Allegany County Court. This was an action of replevin, brought on the 4th of March 1824, by the appellee against the appellant, and sundry goods and chattels were on the same day replevied by the sheriff out of the possession of the appellant, and delivered to the appellee. The appellant, (the defendant below,) pleaded, 1. Non eepit. 2. Property in himself. 3. Justifies the taking, &c. on the 21st of February ,1824, as one of the regularly appointed deputies of the Marshal of the Maryland district, under and in virtue of a writ of fieri facias issued on the- 18th of December 1823,…
1Opinion of the CourtArcher, J.
This case, it is supposed by the counsel for the appellant, is within the rule established in Cromwell, et al. v Owings, 7 Harr. & Johns. 55; because, as is contended by them, before the execution of the writ of replevin, the goods were seized by the deputy marshal of the United States for the district of Maryland, in virtue of a fieri facias issued from the district court, and were by said officer held under the execution until the re» plevin was executed.
This case is brought up upon a case stated, and, like a special verdict, we are not at liberty to infer facts from the evidence therein…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Van Brunt v. PikeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846