Spang v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Montgomery. Dee. 28. This was a scire facias on the recognisance of Spang, late sheriff, terre tenants being also joined. By the special verdict, it appeared that in February Term, 1843, a judgment was entered against Bickel, at the suit of Gressman.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Montgomery. Dee. 28. This was a scire facias on the recognisance of Spang, late sheriff, terre tenants being also joined. By the special verdict, it appeared that in February Term, 1843, a judgment was entered against Bickel, at the suit of Gressman. In April following, a fieri faeias, returnable May 18, was issued thereon and left with the sheriff, who returned that on the 2d of May he had levied on certain goods of the defendant, an inventory of which was annexed. On the 18th May, a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and defendant let…
1Opinion of the Court
Jan. 15.
Bell, J.
It is impossible to imagine any ground upon which Spang can hope to escape the consequences of his negligence. By his seizure of the goods of Bickel, the defendant in the jd. fa., the sheriff was vested with a property in them, and it was his duty to remove them .to a place of security until they could be sold. By the levy retened, Grressman’s judgment was ipso facto discharged, though the goods were never sold, and he could therefore look to no one but the officer executing the writ: Hunt v. Breading, 12 S. & R. 41; Freeman v. Caldwell, 10 Watts, 9; Boas v. Updegrave, 5 Barr,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Freeman v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840